Travelling meanings: accountability practices and standardised instruments at a child protection service in the Netherlands
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
In social work across Europe, the formalisation of daily practices through online instruments, systems and protocols, when interlinked with performance targets, often causes friction with the complex reality of practice. A child protection service in the Netherlands aims to ease this friction by reworking their online instruments to prioritise the needs of families and professionals. Their revised instruments have multiple purposes: (a) helping families; (b) encouraging professional reflection; (c) creating outputs that allow for organisational evaluation practices. In this qualitative study, we seek to understand how professionals interact with these revised instruments, and how professionals anticipate the travelling meanings of the collected data as they are used beyond the family-professional interaction in accountability and evaluation structures. We found that professionals must account for various audiences, temporalities of paperwork and uphold their authority while working with the instruments. We argue that to ensure that the instruments become meaningful in practice, despite their travelling meanings, child protection service professionals engage in boundary work: navigating tensions between simultaneous calls for transparency, accountability, and efficiency on one hand, and reflecting and caring on the other.
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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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