USING PARTICIPATORY METHODS TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT RESEARCH ON HISTORICAL COMPULSORY SOCIAL MEASURES AND PLACEMENTS IN SWITZERLAND
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many of the child welfare policies and practices in Switzerland before the law reform of 1981 were rather invasive and were exercised under a legal context that sometimes threatened basic human rights. The inclusion of survivors of such measures in the research process has been vigorously requested in Switzerland. Therefore, four individuals who had been placed in institutions as children have been included in the process of preparing a recently initiated, 60-year follow-up study of individuals placed in infant care institutions in Switzerland in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Using focus interviews and “think-aloud” methods, the interviewees commented on two parts of the planned research process: (a) how to contact the cohort, and (b) finalising the assessment instruments. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Interviewees felt their participation was a sign of recognition of their experience and expertise. Their input contributed to the research in a host of ways. For example, they helped to make documents more understandable, identified errors and redundancies, and pointed out wording that might cause insecurities or negative reactions. They also pointed to shortcomings in some of the items used in the assessment instruments. In addition, they made significant contributions regarding how best to approach and work with the cohort. This study shows that, when researching historical compulsory social measures, the inclusion of formerly institutionalised individuals in development and implementation is not only feasible, but is of significant benefit to the quality of the research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".