Residential childcare worker perceptions of work-related achievement and pride
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Multiple risk and protective factors influence the wellbeing and retention of child protective and youth justice professionals. Less attention has been given to empirically understand how residential childcare workers (RCW) experience these factors. A sense of pride and of achievement may be related to competence and satisfaction, which have been identified as protective factors against staff turnover. Methods: Responses to the Secure Base Interview Protocol question "What aspects of caring for (name of child in their care) have given you the greatest sense of pride or achievement?" were extracted from individual interview transcripts from Canadian RCW and analyzed using the Interpretive Description methodology. Themes were aggregated using the thematic analysis technique to create descriptions of RCW pride and achievement. Results: The RCW identified many experiences of work-related pride and achievement while caring for children and youth. These positive experiences were described to occur contingent on the level of mutuality and trust in the helping relationship shared between the RCW and child or youth in their care. Discussion: The reciprocal nature of the relationships described by RCW that gave rise to their felt sense of pride and accomplishment is a novel finding. Future work is indicated to better understand how protective factors related to RCW wellbeing may indeed be relationally constructed and dependent.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".