MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169617842 · doi:10.1177/0020872806065324

Cross-cultural application of self-in-relation theory

2006· article· fr· W2169617842 on OpenAlexaff
Chu-Li Julie Liu, Cheryl Regehr

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Social Work · 2006
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Work Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesSociologyAllianceEthnologyPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

English The purpose of this qualitative study is to examine the manner in which ‘selfinrelation’ theory applies to Asian (Taiwanese) women. The findings indicate that participants' perceptions of self and others vary based on distinctive social categories. Implications for culturally appropriate social work practice, in particular the working alliance, are addressed. French L'objectif de cette étude qualitative est d'analyser la façon dont la théorie du 'sentiment de soi en interrelation' s'applique aux femmes asiatiques de Taïwan. Les résultats indiquent que la perception des participantes à l'égard de soi ou des autres varie en fonction de diverses catégories sociales. D'après ce constat, l'auteur analyse comment adapter la pratique du travail social du'point de vue culturel et il se penche tout particulièrement sur l'alliance thérapeutique. Spanish Este estudio cualitativo examina de qué forma la teoría 'el-sí-mismo-en-relación' ('self-in-relation') es aplicable a mujeres asiáticas de Taiwán. Los resultados indican que las percepciones de las participantes acerca de sí mismas y otros varían según categorías sociales distintivas. Se examinan las implicaciones para el trabajo social, en particular para el establecimiento de la alianza trabajador-usuario.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.017
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.358 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Social WorkSame topicSocial Work Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207