Udsatte familiers perspektiv på koordinerede, helhedsorienterede sociale indsatser
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ResumeFormålet med denne artikel er at søge svar på, hvordan deltagelse i et helhedsorienteret tilbud kan styrke familiers indflydelse på eget liv. Det forekommer at være lidt af et paradoks, at større indblanding i privatsfæren kan føre til øget indflydelse på eget liv. Artiklen har til formål, i et borgerperspektiv, at undersøge, hvordan paradokset opleves. Artiklens empiriske grundlag og fund stammer fra udforskning af projektet Familiens Trivsel – Barnets Trivsel over en periode på tre år. Et af formålene med projektet er at styrke udsatte familiers motivation og involvering – og give dem øget indflydelse på løsning af egne udfordringer. Artiklen behandler dette formål set i familiernes perspektiv. Analyserne har især fokus på tre fund. Det første fund handler om, hvorfor familierne har sagt ja tak til at deltage i tilbuddet, og hvordan den nye praksis tilbyder nye erfaringer med velfærdssystemet. Det andet fund drejer sig om, hvilke erfaringer familierne har med at have en medarbejder tæt på i privatsfæren, og hvordan udvikling af tillid forklares af familierne. Det sidste fund peger på, at helbredsudfordringer spiller en stor rolle i familiernes selvforståelse, og arbejdet hermed opfattes meget bredt. Vi konkluderer på fund om, hvordan tillid udvikles trinvis, og vi perspektiverer til, hvordan nye identitetsmuligheder potentielt giver adgang til nye fællesskaber. Vi perspektiverer desuden til det professionelle arbejde, der foregår i den forbindelse, som en tilførsel af socialpædagogik til det socialfaglige felt. Distinktionen mellem socialpædagogisk og socialfaglig tilgang defineres, kort fortalt, som forskelle mellem interventioner på borgerens præmisser i modsætning til interventioner på velfærdssystemets præmisser. AbstractVulnerable Families’ Perspectives on Coordinated and Holistic Social Efforts. On Empowering their Competencies to ActThe purpose of this article is to examine how participation in holistic training – as an offer to families – can strengthen families´ influence on their own lives. It seems paradoxical that increased interference in the private sphere can lead to increased influence on one’s own life. The article examines, from a citizen perspective, how this paradox is experienced. The empirical basis and the findings of the article derives from exploring the project The Family’s Well-Being – The Child’s Well-Being (Familiens Trivsel – Barnets Trivsel) for tree years. One aim of the project is to strengthen the motivation and engagement of vulnerable families and provide them with more influence on solving their own challenges. The article addresses this purpose from the families’ perspective.The analyses focus in particular on three findings. Firstly, why the families have accepted to participate in the training and how this new practice provide them with new experience regarding the welfare system. The second finding deals with the families’ experience with having an employee close to them and how development of trust is explained by the families. The last finding points out that health challenges play a major role in the families’ self-understanding, and the work on this covers a wide field. We conclude on findings on how trust develops incrementally, and we put into perspective how possibly new identities can provide access to new communities. Moreover, we put into perspective the professional work that takes place in this context, which is a supply of social pedagogy to the field of social science.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.106 | 0.021 |
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".