Aligning Perspectives of Subjective Well-Being: Comparing Spouse and Colleague Perceptions of Social Worker Happiness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social workers experience higher rates of burnout and attrition when compared to other health related occupational groups. Previous research on the well being of social workers has tended to focus on the social workers themselves. But the development of well-being is dynamic and is fostered through relationships and interactions with others. In the case of social workers, these relationships include workplace, professional, and personal life interactions. This research sought to better understand the level of congruence between a social worker’s perspective of well-being and perspectives held by significant people in their workplace and at home. Utilizing qualitative methods we interviewed colleagues and spouses (n=10) of social workers that were found to have high levels of work-related subjective well-being. The findings support previous conclusions on the positive subjective well-being (SWB) of practicing social workers, but also indicate a lack of a deeper understanding of the nuances that contribute to social worker SWB. These findings are particularly useful for social workers trying to enhance their SWB, and have direct applicability in education and professional development settings that seek to enhance social worker self-care.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".