Bibliographic record
Abstract
The private practice of social work has been either central or tangential to many historical and contemporary social work issues. Over the years it has been inherent in debates and discussions on professionalism, cause versus function (or macro versus micro), public versus private (or privatization), elitism, control of title, registration or licensing and vendorship (or third-party payments). Private practice has been debated and discussed at two different levels. Historically, it was mainly debated at a higher level—the level of ideologies and philosophies which reflected various deeply held value posititions. More recently a superficial shift has occurred that has moved the debate to a lower level and has focussed the discussions on descriptions of the characteristics of private practice. These descriptions are sometimes contradictory, sometimes inconclusive, and almost always, originate from the United States. Nonetheless, they too are used as arguments both against and in support of private practice. On the higher level, this paper researched private practice in the context of its relationship to professionalism and theories of professionalization. On the lower level, through a self-administered mailed questionnaire, private practitioners in Greater Vancouver were surveyed in order to obtain an accurate and current, description of private practice within the defined geographical area. Many of the descriptions reported in the private practice literature were supported by this sample and others were not. Due to the developing leadership role of professionals within society, professionalization was determined to be beneficial to the profession. Private practice was found to be the delivery model most consistent with early criteria of professionalization. However, recent authors (Austin, 1983; Popple, 1985) have rejected some of the criteria previously asserted as needing to be fulfilled in order to attain professional status. It was therefore concluded that while private practice historically advanced the professionalization of social work, the continuance or the expansion of private practice is not necessary in order to either attain further professional status or to retain that which has already been achieved.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.009 |
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".