Formal and informal support provided to foster families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The foster family is an important part of social care, created when the biological parents are unable to provide care to the child and is of a temporary nature. The article presents the state of research on formal and informal support provided to foster families as well as the results of own research. The aim of the research was to determine how foster families assess the formal and informal support they experience. These two types of support were assessed both objectively and subjectively. The research is part of a wider project aimed at determining the objective and subjective quality of life of foster families. The study was conducted on a sample of 27 foster families (average age of mothers M=53.33; fathers M=55.48; SD=11.41). The Family Quality of Life Survey – general version, FQoLS-2006 by Ivan Brown et al. from the Centre for Health Promotion in Toronto in the Polish adaptation by Ewa Zasępa, Ewa Wapiennik, Agnieszka Wołowicz (2010) and a demographic survey were used. The questionnaire measures the objective and subjective quality of family life in nine areas: family health, financial situation, family relationships, support from other people, support from specialist services and social assistance, value system, professional career and career preparation, leisure and recreation, social interactions. The article presents the results in the following areas: support from other people and support from specialist services. Results and conclusions: support from other people (informal support) and support from specialist services (formal support) were assessed poorly. Foster families assess the received emotional support better than the practical one. In addition, it has been shown that foster families experience many difficulties and, due to the specific nature of the functioning of these families, social support is particularly important for them.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".