Evidence-Based Practice in an Age of Relativism: Toward a Model for Practice
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
Evidence-based practice (EBP) is considered a hallmark of excellence in clinical practice. However, many social workers are uncertain about how to implement this approach to practice. EBP involves integrating clinical expertise and values with the best available evidence from systematic research while simultaneously considering the client's values and expectations--all within the parameters of the agency mandate and any legislative or environmental considerations. This article explores the feasibility of EBP and attempts to steer a course between those who advocate an EBP model that may appear unachievable to many clinicians and those who dismiss it outright on philosophical grounds. Five areas that affect the feasibility of EBP are explored: misconceptions about EBP, confusion about philosophical issues, questions about the quality of evidence needed to support EBP, substantive knowledge domains required for practice, and issues related to knowledge transfer and translation. An important theme of this analysis is the central role of clinical judgment in all aspects of EBP.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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