MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052389741 · doi:10.1093/sw/53.4.317

Exploring Cultural Tensions in Cross-Cultural Social Work Practice

2008· article· en· W2052389741 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Work · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Work Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial workSociologyEthnic groupSocial positionNeutralityReflexivitySocial psychologySocial changeSocial inertiaSocial philosophyPublic relationsSocial relationPsychologySocial sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Discussion of cultural tension in the social work literature is piecemeal. As part of a grounded theory study, this article reports some major findings on cultural tensions experienced by 30 frontline social workers. Cultural tensions caused by cultural similarities and differences among social workers, clients, organizations, and society are multifaceted. Social workers, however, are always at the center of the tensions. Findings indicate that the social work profession may need to consider the neutrality claim of the profession, the different experience of ethnic minority social workers, and the need of critical reflexivity for reflective practitioners. Implications for social work practice, social work education for ethnic minority social workers, and social work research 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.008
Science and technology studies0.0150.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.264
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.187 · 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