How Child and Youth Care Students Think About and Practice Forgiveness: A Qualitative Course-Based Research Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the core of child and youth care (CYC) practice is the ability to cultivate meaningful and positive relationships with children and youth. As CYC students we are taught from day one that knowing one’s self is a pre-condition to building positive and meaningful relationship with others. As a result, we are educated to become more self-aware, a process that involves building our capacity to honestly recognize our beliefs, emotions, personality traits, values, biases, and motivations. Most importantly, we are taught to be forgiving because as human beings we are adept at hiding awkward or painful truths from ourselves. The aim of this course-based study is to contribute to the body of relational CYC knowledge by investigating the perceptions of CYC students’ understanding and practice of the concept of forgiveness. The data were analyzed using a six-phased process of thematic analysis based on the work of Braun and Clark (2006). Four themes emerged from the thematic analysis: (a) freedom, (b) learning how, (c) forgiveness is a process, and (d) your road to forgiveness is your own.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".