MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082418525 · doi:10.1093/sw/55.4.337

Cultural Considerations for Social Service Agencies Working with Muslim Clients

2010· article· en· W2082418525 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

VenueSocial Work · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpiritualityPublic relationsSocial workFaithSociologyService providerCultural diversityDiversity (politics)Service (business)PerceptionCultural competenceQualitative researchSocial psychologyPsychologyPolitical scienceBusinessMedicineMarketingPedagogySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social service agencies and practitioners are continually challenged to provide services that are effective for, and reflective of, cultural and religious diversity. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 50 social work practitioners in four Canadian cities to gain insight into methods of practice that are culturally sensitive for work with Muslim clients. No hard-and-fast rules are identified, but the findings point to some cultural values and issues to consider (in particular the roles of faith and spirituality, community, family, gender, and perceptions of service seeking) and ways that agencies can be responsive to the cultural needs of Muslim clients (in particular by understanding pathways to care, explaining cultural difference, and providing culturally sensitive services). Implications for agencies providing services and future research directions 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.417
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.265 · 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