MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096750367 · doi:10.1177/1049731507301527

Reflections on the Teaching of Evidence-Based Practice

2007· article· en· W2096750367 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

VenueResearch on Social Work Practice · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Work Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumSet (abstract data type)Social workEvidence-based practicePedagogyProcess (computing)Engineering ethicsPsychologySociologyMathematics educationComputer scienceMedicinePolitical scienceEngineeringAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the process of evidence-based practice (EBP) gains a foothold in the curricula of schools of social work and the various helping professions, instructors have been encountering a unique set of challenges. On one hand, educators must develop new curricula to convey material that is often complex and is, even in its most advanced state, still in its infancy. On the other hand, instructors may find themselves in the awkward position of challenging traditional classroom material and entrenched practices. This article offers a supplement to EBP texts by practically discussing some of the philosophical tenets of EBP, suggesting steps to enhance the learning environment, offering instructional supports, and identifying a common set of pitfalls and some suggested solutions.

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)0.083
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.295
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0830.295
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.006
Science and technology studies0.0130.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.638
GPT teacher head0.659
Teacher spread0.021 · 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