Barriers to knowledge acquisition and utilisation in child welfare decisions: A qualitative study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Permanency decisions in child welfare are recognised as being challenging. Nevertheless, society and the profession expect that professional judgements should be of the highest quality, consistent, reliable, fully justified and informed by evidence of what works, particularly where decisions are potentially life-changing. However, barriers to knowledge acquisition and utilisation exist, preventing practitioners from gaining the full range of knowledge they require, leading to permanency decisions being interventionist and protectionist in orientation (author, 2020). Think-aloud protocols and semi-structured interviews, in conjunction with a vignette, were used with social workers ( N = 17) in statutory services to explore barriers to knowledge acquisition and utilisation in permanency decisions for children in state care. Findings The main barriers to knowledge use were (1) misunderstanding or misuse of theory, (2) limitations in training and learning and (3) organisational issues. Applications By developing a real-world understanding of the barriers and listening to the views of the professionals themselves, we can begin to realistically inform policy and practice, with the aim of decreasing the barriers to knowledge acquisition and utilisation in permanency decision-making. If we appreciate the barriers to knowledge acquisition and utilisation in permanency decision-making more fully, then perhaps we can reduce them, thereby facilitating more fully informed decisions that best serve the individual needs of children and their families.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it