Churches and welfare services in Richmond, British Columbia : a survey of reciprocal awareness and utilization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the complexity of contemporary society, the welfare of individuals is dependent upon the co-operation of the helping professions and co-ordination of services provided by the many social institutions. This study considered the degree of cooperation between the two helping professions, social work and the ministry, in the suburban community of Richmond, British Columbia. The research method in this qualitative study included interviews with fifteen clergymen and ten social workers in order to apply the concepts of reciprocal awareness and utilization. This method facilitated evaluation of the knowledge one profession had of the other's role and function, and the extent to which this knowledge was used for the benefit of the population they served. Supplementing this main method was a brief historical consideration of the impact of industrialization on the development and contemporary role of the church and social welfare. The findings of the study showed the awareness one profession had of the other was based more on general knowledge than direct interprofessional contact. The utilization of each other's resources, as indicated by referral patterns, was minimal and typically the result of coincidence rather than planning. Reciprocity, the main concept evaluated, was virtually non-existent. This can primarily be accounted for by absence of communication, despite an acknowledgement by both professions, particularly social work, that there were several gains to be realized from more co-operation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".