MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2188027250

The Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Students in Social Work Programs. A Study Report from the CSWE Council on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression

2015· article· en· W2188027250 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Shelley L. Craig, Lauren B. McInroy, Michael P. Dentato, Ashley Austin, Lori Messinger

Bibliographic record

VenueLoyola eCommons (Loyola University of Chicago) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Work Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRoyal Bank of CanadaCouncil on Social Work Education
KeywordsSexual orientationLesbianQueerTransgenderSexual identityHomosexualityGender studiesHeterosexismGender identitySocial workIdentity (music)PsychologyMale HomosexualitySociologySocial psychologyHuman sexualityPolitical scienceMedicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)LawVirology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This online North American study of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) social work students (n=1,018) in bachelor of social work (BSW; 24%) or master’s of social work (MSW; 76%) programs explored educational experiences in 126 programs in 44 U. S. states and 7 Canadian provinces. Forty-four percent of students reported limited inclusion of LGBTQ content in classes, yet 64% indicated some degree of support for their LGBTQ identities in their programs. One-third reported homophobic experiences in programs, yet many (63%) were aware of “out” LGBTQ faculty. Overall, students reported fairly low levels of self-assessed practice readiness with specific subpopulations (i.e., gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender), with participants reporting the highest (somewhat prepared) self-assessed readiness with gay populations and the lowest (not well-prepared) self-assessed readiness with transgender populations. Participants suggested lower readiness for their non-LGBTQ colleagues. Implications for social work education 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.

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)0.002
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.220
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLoyola eCommons (Loyola University of Chicago)Same topicSocial Work Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207