Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This issue contains nine fascinating papers which, on the surface, have little in common with each other.Yet, to someone like me, coming from mental health social work and an increasingly multidisciplinary, yet user-focused, perspective, which also looks to international perspectives for inspiration, a number of commonalities became apparent.Carolyn Taylor's paper on narration and reflection which opens the issue sets the scene as to the value of taking an in-depth reflective stance in analysing what clients and workers have to tell each other.Often dismissed as a luxury by practitioners, their managers and those focused on large populations research, this type of analysis reminds us that monologues and potential dialogues lie at the heart of social work.In the second article, the search for the best available knowledge occupies Andrew Long, Lesley Grayson and Annette Boaz in their attempts to identify criteria with which to judge the quality of social care knowledge.Coming from social policy rather than from social work backgrounds, and overlooking the multi-stakeholder nature of social care itself, the authors embark on the delineation of seven generic criteria for evaluating knowledge.Assessing the value of knowledge is important when different knowledges and evidence need to be considered, and the usefulness or otherwise of the scheme they propose deserves to be widely discussed.Ian Shaw, Hilary Arksey and Audrey Mullender continue the theme of assessing knowledge with a paper on the rather low visibility of social work within the ESRC (Economic and Social Science Research Council), which confers status on social sciences disciplinary knowledge, and the much needed funding to carry out research, through the allocation of research grants and studentships.With the RAE (research assessment exercise) looming large and close on the horizon of academia in the UK, and with a growing governmentled research evidence-based focus on practice, this issue deserves closer attention.The authors highlight the invisibility of social work within the ESRC, and the uphill struggle required to overcome this state of affairs.Elaine Sharland, in a paper on young people and risk, and Iara Lessa, in an article on teen motherhood, exemplify the significance of analytic discourse which combines different perspectives, such as those of young people, the media, politicians, policy makers and social analysts.Lessa's study interweaves individual stories and lessons from a voluntary organization in Canada.Sharland's research is a timely reminder that the multifaceted risk issue resonates not only for young people, but is a major issue in working and researching mental health, child protection, disability and old age.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,020 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».