Compassion fatigue in child protection workers in Northeastern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A career in the child protection sector is one of the most complex roles in the social work profession. Child protection worker (CPW) duties include accepting referrals, conducting investigations of allegations or evidence that children are experiencing abuse, and protecting children from abuse where necessary. This can include providing short- or long-term intervention with families, or ultimately removing children from their homes, where the risks are too great to be mitigated with less intrusive measures. CPWs are on-call and available 24-hours per day, 7-days per week. Due to the demanding nature of the career, CPWs often experience symptoms of compassion fatigue which can manifest in many symptoms, such as physical, emotional, and mental distress and disturbances. The aim of this qualitative research thesis was to examine the experiences of CPWs in Northeastern Ontario through individual interviews with CPW retirees. A total of 11 retirees were individually interviewed. The interviews were then transcribed and qualitatively analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. Three main themes were constructed from the responses: Quality/Impact of the Work; Recruitment and Retention; and Recommendations for Improvement. This thesis describes four implications of this study: the impact on CPWs’ well-being; the importance of increased training; the necessity of clinical supervision and debriefing; as well as the significance of peer-to-peer learning. Lastly, study limitations, as well as considerations for future research, are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".