MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2305766751 · doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcw005

Joining the Global Conversation: Social Workers Define Health Using a Participatory Action Research Approach

2016· article· en· W2305766751 on OpenAlexaff
Rachelle Ashcroft, Trish Van Katwyk

Bibliographic record

VenueThe British Journal of Social Work · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConversationAction (physics)Citizen journalismParticipatory action researchWork (physics)SociologyPublic relationsSocial determinants of healthEngineering ethicsPsychologyPolitical scienceMedicinePublic healthNursingEngineeringCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The social work profession is immersed in health-relevant considerations across its numerous fields of practice. The way in which health is defined becomes an essential guide to the way in which social work and other health-related practice occurs. Furthermore, the definition and conceptualisation of health guides research and theory development. This article aims to demonstrate the im portance of social work’s contributions to the global conversation on the definition of health. Results from a participatory action research (PAR) study aimed at exploring how social work educators, practitioners and students conceptualise health help to demonstrate the need for social work to continue engaging in this foundational conversation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.126
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.666

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1260.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0200.049
Scholarly communication0.0200.017
Open science0.0030.029
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.685
GPT teacher head0.546
Teacher spread0.139 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe British Journal of Social WorkSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207