MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1764027900 · doi:10.1080/08841233.2014.977988

Patterns and Trends of Canadian Social Work Doctoral Dissertations

2015· article· en· W1764027900 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Teaching in Social Work · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Work Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial workSociologyDoctoral dissertationWork (physics)Descriptive statisticsQualitative researchIntervention (counseling)Social scienceLibrary scienceMedical educationPsychologyPolitical scienceHigher educationMedicineEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first social work doctoral program in Canada began in 1952. Relatively recently, the number of programs has grown rapidly, doubling in the past 10 years to 14 programs. Despite the expansion there is no systematic understanding of the patterns and trends in doctoral research. In this study we review 248 publicly available dissertations from 2001 to 2011. We find that most dissertations are qualitative and descriptive in nature with a relatively low percentage focusing on intervention. We compare findings with other dissertation studies and raise critical questions about the knowledge base of social work in Canada.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.229
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.319 · 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