MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2342944135 · doi:10.1080/01609513.2015.1048419

Norma Lang’s Use of Nondeliberative Approaches: Through a Multidimensional Lens of Activity in Social Work Groups

2016· article· en· W2342944135 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Work With Groups · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Work Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConversationMeaning (existential)Social workWork (physics)Social groupPsychologySociologyEpistemologyThrough-the-lens meteringSocial psychologyGroup workLens (geology)PedagogyPsychotherapistCommunicationEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is intended to enter into a conversation with the significant work done by Norma Lang on nondeliberative approaches in social work with groups, and, in particular, her use of these approaches in working with people who have limited social skills. The intention is to locate significant strands of her conceptualizing, teaching, and practice within a discussion of the concept “activity”—a concept that social work with groups has uniquely contributed to social work theory and practice. It is proposed that aspects of “activity” can be more fully understood and analyzed using a number of intersecting dimensions: interaction, purpose, meaning, and analog.

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.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.212 · 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