How children and young people understand and experience individual participation in social services for children and young people: a synthesis of qualitative studies
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 økt 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 gjennomført en metaanalyse av kvalitativ forskning om barn og unges erfaringer med individuell medvirkning i sosiale tjenester for barn og unge.Vi ser spesielt på hva forskningslitteraturen viser om hvordan de forstår innholdet i begrepet medvirkning og hvilke praksiser de mener er avgjørende for deres opplevelse individuell medvirkning i tjenestene.Formålet med studien er å formidle kunnskap om individuell medvirkning i sosiale tjenester sett fra barn og unges perspektiv.
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 | 0.038 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".