Prevention as an Explicit Part of the Social Work Profession: Part Two of a Systematic Investigation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2011, Advances in Social Work published results from an investigation into the explicit use of “prevention” language within the social work profession. Findings from this study highlighted a gap in the knowledge and integration of prevention-focused social work education and practice. A recommendation was made to examine additional indicators that illustrate the extent to which “prevention” is an accepted and growing subfield within the social work academy. This second paper continues the inquiry by examining three additional indicators for integration of prevention content, including: 1) CSWE accredited MSW programs; 2) social work textbooks; and 3) abstracts accepted at two national social work conferences. Although findings demonstrate that about a quarter of MSW programs integrate prevention content into their curriculum there is a lack of prevention content available within social work textbooks and professional conferences for social work scholars and practitioners. Barriers and supports to addressing these issues 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it