MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972856162 · doi:10.1080/03124070802626893

Emerging Areas of Practice for Mental Health Social Workers: Education and Employment

2009· article· en· W1972856162 on OpenAlexaff
Janki Shankar, Jennifer Martin, Catherine McDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Social Work · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Work Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthSocial workContext (archaeology)Mental health serviceVariety (cybernetics)Public relationsField (mathematics)SociologyWork (physics)Economic growthPsychologyPolitical sciencePsychiatryEconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent times in Australia there has been a slow but steady trend among mental health services to employ generic mental health workers from a variety of professional backgrounds. These workers undertake the jobs that were traditionally assigned to social workers. Although many social workers compete successfully for these positions, a question that needs to be explored in the contemporary service and policy context is social work's distinct contribution to the field of mental health. The present paper argues that social work's distinct contribution may lie in the area of psychiatric recovery, especially those areas that link mental health with broader social issues, such as employment and education. The present paper will discuss the role of social work in two areas of recovery, namely supported employment and education. These are emerging areas of practice and social workers must take advantage of these opportunities.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.391 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations19
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Social WorkSame topicSocial Work Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207