MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171944596 · doi:10.18740/s4d02b

A Peace Paradigm in Social Work.

2009· article· en· W2171944596 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Adenike Yesufu

Bibliographic record

VenueSocialist studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCohesion (chemistry)SociologyFocus (optics)Paradigm shiftSocial workWork (physics)JoinsPublic relationsSocial changeEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceEpistemologyComputer scienceEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social work is usually seen as a profession with a localized focus but it is eclectic as it borrows from various disciplines for its theoretical framework, which makes it at times disjointed with no cohesion in the various dimensions of its practice. There have been several calls for a change of paradigm in Social Work. This paper takes a critical look at the profession and joins the myriad of calls for the expansion of the Social Work focus. In particular, this article introduces a peace paradigm, which would essentially integrate peace issues and peace perspectives into Social Work practice.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.276
GPT teacher head0.594
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocialist studiesSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207