Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research is focused on Anti-Oppressive Practice (AOP) within the context of Child Protection. The research focuses on child protection workers and supervisors currently working in child protection and their experiences working from an AOP lens. It explores what AOP looks like from an individual, agency and systemic perspective through the experiences of four frontline workers. This methodology is centred around examining frontline workers’ ability to implement and practice from an AOP lens. The participants contribute to the necessary conversation to understand if child protection workers can truly work within the system from an AOP lens. The themes of the findings include: a) AOP and its implementation; b) AOP training and Understanding “Safe Spaces”; c) “Advocacy” with children and their families; d) microaggressions: “but I’m not racist?”; e) “Leader”ship; f) The Pendulum of Child Protection g) What (or who) is working well; and h) Accountability to AOP: it can’t be voluntary.
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 | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.102 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| 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".