MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1572018958 · doi:10.1300/j009v31n01_03

A Group Worker Response to “A Mission-Based Model for Social Work”

2008· article· en· W1572018958 on OpenAlexaff
Paule McNicoll

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Work With Groups · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Society, and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChatterjeeCentralityWork (physics)Social workSociologyPoliticsGroup workSocial groupPublic relationsSocial psychologyPsychologySocial sciencePolitical scienceComputer scienceEngineeringLawPedagogyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay offers commentary on the article “Toward a Mission-Based Model for Social Work: A Foundation for Practice” by Pranab Chatterjee and Mandy Fauble (2008). The commentary addresses two points regarding the implementation of a mission-based model of social work: (1) the complexity of the dominant economic and political culture that isolates clients and constrains social work practice and (2) the centrality of group work as a tool for preserving community and organizing for change.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.082
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.082
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0240.045
Scholarly communication0.0100.010
Open science0.0060.012
Research integrity0.0690.088
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Work With GroupsSame topicReligion, Society, and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207