Bibliographic record
Abstract
This commentary offers an expanded viewpoint to Christopher J. Wretman's (2016) article titled “Saving Satir: Contemporary Perspectives on the Change Process Model,” which appeared in the January 2016 issue of Social Work. The article observed that Virginia Satir's work has been underrepresented in the research and academic literature. Its author was concerned that in today's evidence-based climate, Satir's work and ideas run the risk of being lost short of empirical validation. Wretman attempted to identify what key constructs belong to Satir and pitched for the systematization of Satir's model, that is, to subject it to empirical research and thus “save Satir.” Satir, a teacher, social worker, and pioneer figure in family therapy (Nichols, 2013), cut out a path that was more in the tradition of social movement leaders (Lee, 2002c) than researchers in the academe. Working in a time of momentous change in the United States in the 1960s to 1980s, when the status quo of women, race, war, environment, and marriage were being questioned (Eyerman & Jamison, 1991), she struck a chord with those who lived under oppressive institutions of hierarchical domination. In the spirit of a movement leader, she pursued a strategy of working outside of institutions to reach the masses rather than gain acceptance among the elite (King, 1989). Her penchant for connecting with the grassroots and with families directly is not foreign to social workers, who can be seen as forerunners to the profession of marriage and family therapy (Bond, 2009). Through workshops and staged family reconstructions, Satir challenged the medical pathology-focused convention, raised consciousness about the human being positioned as the center of possibilities (Duhl, 1989), and rallied a sizable following that has a groundswell effect to this day. She wrote for the general public in a manner she hoped would be accessible even to those with an elementary school education (S. Loeschen, personal communication, February 9, 2016), reaching millions across the globe.
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 | 0.018 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".