Bibliographic record
Abstract
Looking at practices in different locations is beneficial since it helps challenge assumptions that we may take for granted. Groupwork, as a method of social work, is specifically interesting to explore in the light of different contexts since, like social work, it may or may not translate well across cultures. This paper draws from data collected in the context of a research project that aimed to describe the current state of social work with groups in Quebec and to explore trends within social work with groups elsewhere in the world. Specifically, it focuses on the exploration of practices in Quebec and discusses them in relationship to those found in the USA, as a counterpoint. Our findings highlight some differences and similarities between Quebec and the USA with regard to groupwork, which leads us to discuss a range of factors that may impact on groupwork in the different contexts. Of these, the differences of organisational context and organisation of services have emerged as particularly noteworthy, which echoes findings in general social work literature with regard to the importance of local contexts on the definition of practice itself.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.070 | 0.019 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".