MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2509132159 · doi:10.1177/1049731516662319

Research on Social Work Practice in Egypt and the Arab World

2016· article· en· W2509132159 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch on Social Work Practice · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Work Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of KentYork University
KeywordsSocial workWork (physics)SociologyThematic analysisIntervention (counseling)Social sciencePublic relationsQualitative researchPolitical sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article aims at introducing the research on social work practice in Egypt and the Arab World as a thematic topic. It has started with the essence of the current Arab World and its definition. Social work practice and models of social work intervention in this specific region have been described in terms of its specific and topographic nature. Three main contributors and players to research on social work practice have been included namely social work practitioners, academic social work researchers, and doctoral dissertations granted by Western universities to Arabs. The discussions and implications to research on social work practice in Egypt and the Arab World have been addressed.

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)0.084
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.118
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0840.118
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.020
Science and technology studies0.0170.005
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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 head0.282
GPT teacher head0.570
Teacher spread0.288 · 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