Les jeunes confiés et l’écriture de leur histoire. Une analyse du contexte français
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2020, the National Consultative Commission on Human Rights noted significant issues with the child protection system in France, including inconsistencies between departments, that undermine the defence of children's rights. For instance, ensuring that young people enjoy the right to take charge of their own stories has not been a priority for French child protection services, despite the guarantees provided in Article 7 of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child and recent commitments by French political authorities. In this context, how should the issue be addressed through the practice of social work? How can family support workers guide the young people they work with in writing their life stories? How do foster children experience the process? We explore these questions through a preliminary analysis of the results of a mixed methodology research study on the life narratives of foster children. Responses to a questionnaire distributed to 250 family support workers and data collected during 15 interviews point to difficulties with putting stories into words, given the complexities associated with the construction and transmission of foster children’s life narratives. The results highlight how the opportunity to discuss their lives with family support workers helps children put their life stories into written form and adopt a narrative identity capable of overcoming difficult memories, unspoken truths, and institutional ignorance.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".