How children and young people understand and experience individual participation in social services for children and young people: a synthesis of qualitative studies
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
Although there is a growing knowledge base on children and young people's (CYP) participation in child welfare and social work, it is necessary to systematically describe and summarise the knowledge from their subjective perspectives.This study has conducted a metaanalysis of qualitative research on CYP's experiences of individual participation in social services for children and young people.We specifically focus on what the research literature can tell us about how they understand the concept of individual participation and which professional practices they find essential for their participation in the services.The aim is to present knowledge about individual participation in social services seen from the CYP perspective. SAMMENDRAGTil tross for kt kunnskap om betydningen av barn og unges medvirkning i barnevern og sosialt arbeid, trengs det mer systematisk kunnskap som tar utgangspunkt i barn og unges egne perspektiv.I denne studien har vi gjennomfrt en metaanalyse av kvalitativ forskning om barn og unges erfaringer med individuell medvirkning i sosiale tjenester for barn og unge.Vi ser spesielt p hva forskningslitteraturen viser om hvordan de forstr innholdet i begrepet medvirkning og hvilke praksiser de
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it