The experience of strengths based practice and reflexive practice with supervision at the family enrichment centre of Sudbury, Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
My Master of Social Work practicum took place in a non-‐profit social service agency with the City of Greater Sudbury called The Family Enrichment Centre. This agency specialized in providing therapeutic mental health services to a cross section of people within the Greater City of Sudbury and surrounding communities.I had two primary goals. The first was to learn different treatment modalities in my clinical work with individuals that fit within the Strengths Perspective. The second was to utilize clinical supervision in its various forms to further develop a reflexive clinical orientation. I was able to build upon my existing experience with treatment modalities I had previously used and to practice some new treatment modalities by using the clinical structures and resources built into the agency. These clinical structures and resources included common intake, assessment and recording tools as well as training opportunities and information on a variety of clinical modalities. I was also able to develop a more reflexive practice through the use of one to one clinical supervision with a clinical psychologist, ad hoc individual supervision/consultation with other therapists and regular group consultation with other therapists. Participation within their anger management group and bi-‐weekly individual spiritual presentations where each individual therapist shared their unique spirituality provided a work environment with reflection built into it and was in itself a primary tool in building reflexivity into my clinical practice within the Centre.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".