MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130479381 · doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcs193

Social Worker Burnout in Israel: Contribution of Daily Stressors Identified by Social Workers

2012· article· en· W2130479381 on OpenAlexaff
Riki Savaya

Bibliographic record

VenueThe British Journal of Social Work · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Work Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré de Santé et Services Sociaux de Chaudière-Appalache
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBurnoutStressorSocial workSocial WelfareWelfareTel avivService (business)PsychologyPolitical scienceBusinessClinical psychologyMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper examines the contributions to burnout of three day-to-day job stressors—abuse by service users, thwarted implementation of professional decisions and job-related dilemmas—which had been identified as especially upsetting by social workers in a previous study. The study participants were 363 social workers employed in direct service provision in municipal welfare departments in Israel. Since some were employed in the Tel Aviv–Yafo municipality and others in municipalities elsewhere in Israel, place of employment was included in the analyses. The findings show that abuse by service users and place of employment contributed to all three of Maslach's dimensions of burnout, while neither thwarted implementation of professional decisions nor job-related dilemmas contributed significantly to any of them. The contribution of client abuse challenges previous findings suggesting that service user factors play little role in burnout. The finding that the Tel Aviv–Yafo social workers had less burnout than the others requires further examination to determine why.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe British Journal of Social WorkSame topicSocial Work Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207