MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004152593

Kannatteleva ja jännitteinen tukiperhetoiminta : lastensuojelun tukiperhetoiminnan käyttöteoria ja tukisuhteet

2020· article· fi· W3004152593 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Anu-Riina Svenlin

Bibliographic record

VenueJyväskylä University Digital Archive (University of Jyväskylä) · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefi
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicResearch in Social Sciences
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Oxford
KeywordsPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores the Support Family as a child and family welfare intervention. Support Families are volunteers who provide community-based support to children and parents coping with a range of psycho-social challenges. The child usually spends one weekend a month with a Support Family. The research focuses on informal practice theory, sometimes described in social work as ‘practice wisdom’, that guides the intervention, on the different actors, on the content and effects of the intervention, and on social mechanisms that explain how a relationship develops over time between the two families. The theoretical framework underpinning this study consists of critical realism (CR) and CAIMeR-theory, based on CR. CAIMeR-theory aims to explain direct practice with clients in social work. The research has applied a case study strategy; the case study was carried out in a child welfare unit, in a medium-sized city in Finland. Data was collected from focus group discussions with social workers in child and family welfare, conducted in 2011 (N=6), and from interviews with children, parents and support families (N=15), conducted in 2014. The study explored six different support relationships. Theory-based content analysis has been applied. This study shows that practice theory is complex. Based on the support rela-tionships, critical points in the practice theory are identified, concerning both objec-tives and content of the intervention. Support Family intervention is based on the temporary strengthening of the network. This appears to conflict with one of the main purposes of the intervention - to bring safe and reliable relationships to the child's life. The content of the intervention for the child is based on everyday care, stimulation, exposing the child to alternative role models, interaction between chil-dren, and interaction between child and adult(s). For a parent, the core of the intervention consists of both respite care and a collaborative partnership offered by the Support Family. The study identified three mechanisms. The ‘echo Mechanism’ explains the receipt of support. The ‘mirror Mechanism’ describes how the parent becomes empowered through interactions between themselves and the Support Family. The ‘support-producing context Mechanism’ appears to energise the child and profile the effects, especially of the physical environment as part of the intervention. The study identifies a need to strengthen networks for the child and parent(s) on a more permanent basis.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.010
Scholarly communication0.0010.005
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJyväskylä University Digital Archive (University of Jyväskylä)Same topicResearch in Social SciencesFrench-language works237,207