‘Our people could more accurately be described as social workers’: Professional identity, practice standards and regulation in Irish probation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2018 the Irish Probation Service introduced a requirement that applicants for positions as probation officers must be registered social workers. Five years later, in 2023, that requirement was removed. That latter decision, as well as other organisational changes and current legislative proposals have the potential to weaken the erstwhile strong link between probation and social work in Ireland and more importantly to reduce overall practice standards and organisational effectiveness. This article considers the frequently ambiguous connection between social work and probation in Ireland, under a number of headings, including history, professional identity, registration and regulation, language, and education. Issues currently impacting or likely to have an adverse impact on that connection between social work and probation, and practice standards, will be discussed and the unfulfilled promise and potential that social work continues to offer Irish probation explored. In the context of wider pressures on the Irish criminal justice system, specifically prison overcrowding, and the role of the Probation Service in response, the piece will also discuss how the current less than optimal situation can be turned around to positive effect.
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 | 0.021 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".