MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1521091555 · doi:10.1300/j001v24n01_04

Clinical Supervision in Social Work

2006· article· en· W1521091555 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Clinical Supervisor · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Work Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpirical researchProfessional developmentExploratory researchPsychologyBody of knowledgeWork (physics)Clinical supervisionSocial workField (mathematics)Medical educationPedagogySociologyKnowledge managementMedicinePolitical scienceSocial scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In social work, supervision is valued as a crucial activity for professional learning and development. Over time, an extensive body of literature has developed that is largely theoretical and practice-oriented. The development of an empirical body of knowledge for supervision has been slow with most approaches supported solely by anecdotal accounts. An extensive review of the empirical studies on supervision conducted in the past decade was undertaken. Two separate streams of inquiry were found; one focused on supervision of professional staff and one focused on field education of students. This body of research is reviewed in two companion papers. Recent studies of supervision of staff are largely descriptive and exploratory yielding limited knowledge for evidence-based supervision. Organizational and professional issues related to the dearth of studies are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.422
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.157
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it