Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, many social workers have joined the ranks of virtual or e-therapists. While this offers exciting new opportunities for social work practice, the advent of e-therapy has come with a host of challenges particular to Internet communication that may not be reconcilable with current social work regulation. This paper reviews the social work codes of ethics in both the United States and Canada, legislation governing treatment, and case law with respect to several important issues related to e-therapy. The paper begins with a discussion of jurisdictional issues and expertise to practice e-therapy. Next, it suggests that if e-therapy fits within the purview of acceptable social work practice, the establishment of therapist–patient relationships creates professional duties of care owed to patients and to the public. Four of the most critical duties in a therapeutic encounter are considered: the duty to obtain informed consent, the duty to maintain confidentiality, the duty to warn third parties of harm, and the duty to maintain professional boundaries.
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 | 0.073 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.033 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".