Practice supervisors’ views on workplace risks for child protection social workers in Gauteng, South Africa: a qualitative description
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
Child protection social workers (CPSWs) views on workplace risks and the adverse outcomes of this practice setting are well documented in the literature. However, little is known about the views of practice supervisors. Given the significance of supervisors in CPSWs’ professional functioning, we conducted a qualitative descriptive study in Gauteng, South Africa, to augment the existing knowledge about workplace risks for South African CPSWs from the perspective of supervisors. We conducted semi-structured interviews with eight supervisors and performed qualitative content analysis. Bronfenbrenner’s socioecological model was applied to the findings, comprising the following dimensions: intrapersonal: misaligned motivations, an inadequate skill set, and the personal make-up of CPSWs; interpersonal: dangerous working environments, client and community profile, and a lack of support; institutional: inherently distressing work, unmanageable workloads, low salaries, and restricted funding and resources; community: being disregarded and disrespected by other professionals and unreliable role players; and policy level: political interference, amendments to childcare legislation, and administrative demands from the government. Participants’ views substantiate existing literature with some nuanced expansions and more examples on how South African universities are partly responsible for CPSWs’ inadequate skill set, as well as more details on how political interference amplifies CPSWs’ stress.
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 | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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