MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109791577 · doi:10.1093/hsw/hls064

Bouncers, Brokers, and Glue: The Self-described Roles of Social Workers in Urban Hospitals

2013· article· en· W2109791577 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

VenueHealth & Social Work · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Work Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial workHealth careFocus groupQualitative researchPsychologyNursingPublic relationsPerceptionMedical educationSociologyMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social workers delivering services in health care settings face unique challenges and opportunities. The purpose of this study was to solicit input from social workers employed in urban hospitals about their perceptions of the roles, contribution, and professional functioning of social work in a rapidly changing health care environment. Using qualitative methods, the university and hospital-based research team conducted seven focus groups (n = 65) at urban hospitals and analyzed the data using an interpretive framework with ATLAS.ti software. Seven major themes emerged from the participants' description of their roles: bouncer, janitor, glue, broker, firefighter, juggler, and challenger. Along with descriptions of the ways social workers fulfilled those roles, participants articulated differences in status within those roles, the increasing complexity of discharge planning, and expectations to provide secondary support to other health care professionals on their teams. Implications for practice and 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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.318 · 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