Caseworkers working with groups : a survey and assessment of casework agencies using groups of clients and relatives of clients for educational and treatment work, Greater Vancouver.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many social agencies today, caseworkers are working with groups of clients or relatives of clients and there are increasing references to this development in the literature. The purpose of the present study was to discover? (a) the extent of the use of such groups by caseworkers in the Greater Vancouver Area; (b) the administrative policy on the subject; (c) the views and experience of supervisors in the group method, including problems of supervising caseworkers; (d) the experience and also the training of caseworkers in these groups. Questionnaires were utilized to obtain most of the data. They were sent to the casework agencies of the Greater Vancouver Area, to the administrators of agencies with caseworkers using the group method, and to the supervisors of such caseworkers. An interview schedule was prepared to use in interviews with caseworkers who were "change agents" in a group. The evidence is that increasing numbers of social workers in the Greater Vancouver Area are working with groups of people rather than singly. The administrative level reflects much uncertainty about the appropriate policy to develop in the use of group methods. Supervisors are on the whole not experienced in this technique, and questions on how to supervise caseworkers working with groups need to be answered. Caseworkers are favorably impressed with the usefulness of groups as a way of helping clients and relatives of clients, but most of them lack adequate training in group method. To improve services, there is now a need for a classification system of group services to be employed in casework agencies, and there is an urgent need for training, probably with the aid of Schools of Social Work Instructors, to help caseworkers become proficient in this new development of group method.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".