MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115931349 · doi:10.1080/14623943.2014.883312

Playing hide-and-seek: searching for the use of self in reflective social work practice

2014· article· en· W2115931349 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

VenueReflective Practice · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Work Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrivilege (computing)NarrativeReflective practicePower (physics)Self-reflectionSocial workPsychologyQualitative researchDiversity (politics)CurriculumCritical reflectionReflection (computer programming)Work (physics)Social psychologySociologyPedagogySocial scienceComputer sciencePsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the increasing awareness of power and privilege in current theorizing, social workers are increasingly called upon to engage in critical self-reflection and develop strategies of reflective use of self in their practice. However, despite this call the use of self is disappearing from social work curricula. This paper presents an overview of findings from a small qualitative study exploring the use of self among reflective social work practitioners. In-depth collegial conversations were used to generate data. Narrative and discourse analysis were used to interpret the data. Findings are nuanced and textured reflecting the diversity of participants’ worldviews.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.090
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science 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 score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.090
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.332 · 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