Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Reflective social work supervision is essential to professional development, building resilience and client work. However, in child protection, supervision is preoccupied with managing risk and meeting outcomes at the expense of analysis and critical reflection. Oranga Tamariki (OT), the statutory child protection organisation in Aotearoa New Zealand, has recently been scrutinised for poor supervisory practice. The authors worked alongside OT social work supervisors and supervisees to explore ways to generate resilience, learning, self-awareness and develop practices that support reflective capability and well-being in supervision. METHODS: This article presents data from the pre/post online evaluation of an action research intervention study with OT supervisors and supervisees. The aim of the online survey was to measure participants’ supervision practices, and the extent to which perceptions of confidence, reflection, professional learning and resilience improved. FINDINGS: The findings are reported from key areas within OT supervision: the frequency of supervision sessions, the functions of supervision, engagement in reflection, supervision- changing practice, resilience and longevity in social work careers and the supervision of supervisors. CONCLUSIONS: The results from the survey showed social workers had increased confidence as they built reflective capacity, resiliency and improved their supervision practice. The study identified the importance of developing learning spaces that enhance reflective supervision for supervisors and supervisees in child protection.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 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) | 0.009 | 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".