MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405887646 · doi:10.1921/swssr20242005

The Irony of Child Protection: A qualitative analysis of social workers and police officers’ challenges in supporting the rights of victims of child marriage

2024· article· en· W4405887646 on OpenAlexaff
Samuel Logoniga Gariba, Mette Rømer

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Work and Social Sciences Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChild protectionWelfareIronySocial workConstitutionBattleCriminologyIntervention (counseling)Political scienceSociologyLawPublic relationsPsychologyMedicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social workers and the police are key frontline workers providing intervention against the practice of child marriage. However, the challenges they experience have received little attention in the literature on child marriage. This paper seeks to contribute to emerging literature by exploring the challenges frontline workers face when intervening in a child marriage situation in Ghana. The study utilizes semi-structured interviews to collect data from six frontline workers and analyses the data thematically. The study found that frontline workers follow a common practice of prematurely reintegrating rescued victims back into the environment where child marriage is encouraged. This raises awareness of what we called the child protection irony which is inconsistent with the constitution and the child welfare policies in Ghana. As a result, the girls is left alone to battle their way out of child marriage while the perpetrators remain unpunished. The findings suggest a need for collaboration between child protection agencies to ensure that child welfare laws and resource allocations are implemented effectively to safeguard children’s rights.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.159
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.342 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Work and Social Sciences ReviewSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207