Technology and Access: Responding to the Social Work Education Needs of First Nations and Inuit Communities
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper presents challenges in delivering social work education in areas that are traditionally geographically, psychologically, and/or linguistically isolated from mainstream Canadian society. Included are discussions using technology to reach these groups. In response to research results from 'Rethinking Social Work Education for First Nations and Inuit Communities' and as part of a continuing commitment by McGill University to ongoing professional development for social workers in Indigenous communities, a multidisciplinary, online supervision course was offered to Community Services staff in the First Nations community of Kahnawake. Evaluations of Kahnawake participants are included as well as next steps. Keywords: Indigenous Social Work EducationTechnology and AccessFirst Nations Social ServicesInuit Social Work EducationEducational Outreach Acknowledgements The authors are grateful for the support of the Ministere de l'éducation, du sport et du loisir du Quebec for the project on which this article is based and for funding from the McGill Training and Human Resources Development Project for translation and adaptation of 'The Art of Supervision'. Notes 1. This is a Health Canada‐funded project with an overall objective of improving access to services in English for minority Anglophone communities in the regions of Quebec.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it