Understanding ‘Successful Practice/s’ with Parents with Learning Difficulties when there are Concerns about Child Neglect: the Contribution of Social Practice Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Social practice theory (SPT) investigates how meanings (socially available understandings/attitudes) work together with competences and materials / resources to develop shared (social) practices. SPT was used as a theoretical and analytical framework in a study which investigated ‘successful’ professional practices when working with parents with learning difficulties where there are concerns about child neglect. The research took place in three local authorities (LAs) in England that were recommended as sites of ‘successful’ practice. With the parents’ agreement, 38 professionals who worked with the eight participating families were asked about their ideas about parents with learning difficulties and neglect, their understanding of ‘successful’ practice, their experience and knowledge of working with this group of parents, how they worked with the parent and other professionals involved with the parent, as well as the resources available to them. Detailed case studies of the support provided to eight mothers were developed. It was found that the professionals shared a range of attitudes and understandings, including awareness of the many barriers faced by this disadvantaged group of parents, and that the neglect was typically linked to lack of understanding/knowledge about the child’s needs which could in many cases be mitigated through provision of support. The meanings they shared promoted an empowering, relationship-based, multi-agency approach to parents which recognised their need for support while also focusing on the needs and welfare of the children. This positive approach accords with the call for longer-term/recurrent support to be available for parents with learning difficulties alongside the development of a social model of child protection that rethinks how best to safeguard vulnerable children.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".