The social worker in the treatment team : an examiniation of representative cases in the Vancouver General Hospital Out Patient Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The social worker in the treatment team is a phrase that is heard often today. In this age of scientific specialization, no one person can possibly utilize all the available knowledge required for health and welfare. Medicine, like all the other applied sciences, has developed so rapidly that theories change from day to day. Through all this exciting and revolutionary change, the person who is sick is often forgotten. The patient is often referred to as a peptic ulcer or a tumour. At this present stage, there has been a rather interesting development. Medical scientists have suddenly realized that there is a definite relation between the mind and the body in sickness. There is, therefore, a need for a specialist who has skills in the treatment of social and emotional problems. It is in this area that the social worker lends her skills to the treatment team. Treatment no longer is complete with relief from pain and the physical discomfort; it must also be a relief from fear of financial insecurity, environmental problems, personality maladjustments and emotional frustration. This study is an attempt to show where the social worker can be of value in the medical setting. Social work in the Vancouver General Hospital is still infantile in its development and it is hoped this study will be of some help in defining the function of the social worker. The lack of real casework services made the selection of cases very difficult. The cases used were, for the most part, done by students. The ten cases which were used were considered good examples of social work in the hospital setting.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".