MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989708479 · doi:10.1300/j067v27n03_06

Evidence-Based Curricular Guidelines for Statistical Education in Social Work

2007· article· en· W1989708479 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 · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Work Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial workStatistical analysisStatistical evidenceWork (physics)PsychologyMedical educationMedicinePolitical scienceStatisticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The types of statistical analyses used in more than 800 journal articles commonly cited by social workers were examined and comparisons of statistical analyses used in this published research were made between journal articles published in the late 1980s and early 2000. The data clearly indicate little has changed in the statistical methods used by social workers during the past 15 years. This analysis is used to suggest concrete evidence-based curricular guidelines in social work statistical education that meet the governing bodies (Council on Social Work Education and Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work) objectives, and attends to and further enhances the process of incremental statistical learning across all levels of education, with more advanced requirements with each program degree. Key Words: Statistical analysissocial workvertical integrationcurricular guidelinesevidence-based

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.566
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.346 · 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