Bibliographic record
Abstract
As child welfare practice in Ontario attempts to move toward increased partnerships with families, and recognition of the ways in which social work is implicated in perpetuating marginalities through the application of an anti-oppressive lens, direct social work practice with children lacks a similar critical discourse. Social work practice with children in care in Ontario occurs in the context of a guided practice model, Looking After Children, and within numerous audited standards and compliances. It is a bureaucratic and managerial environment which can constrain the social work agenda with children whose voices are easily silenced. This qualitative research study looks at the plans of care or social work recording for 10 Crown Wards in Ontario, in a search for a ‘real child.’ A critical analysis revealed that children are known in the recordings created about them in limited and prescribed ways. A “looked after” child is revealed: a child known according to the specific developmental dimensions of the Looking After Children model, and within “compliant” social work practice. What is lost is a child who exists in their child welfare record, in all of their complexities, contexts and relationships, while the social work relationship is rendered invisible.
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 | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".