MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810023388 · doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcy051

Social Work’s Scope of Practice in Primary Mental Health Care: A Scoping Review

2018· review· en· W2810023388 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

VenueThe British Journal of Social Work · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Work Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)Mental healthInclusion (mineral)Scope of practiceNursingSocial workHealth careWork (physics)Principal (computer security)MedicinePsychologyPublic relationsPolitical sciencePsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The inclusion of social workers as members of inter-professional primary health-care teams is an asset to health-care delivery by improving access to a broad range of psycho-social and mental health-care services and programmes. This scoping review examined the literature to summarise social work’s scope of practice in the provision of primary mental health care. Five electronic databases were searched within any given year to provide a comprehensive review of the literature. In the initial search, 4,800 articles were found and thirty met the inclusion criteria. One research team member reviewed the included articles independently with supervision from the principal investigator. Three categories emerged from the review: clinical responsibilities, social work activities in primary health-care and barriers to the implementation of social workers in such settings. An examination of social work’s scope of practice will help guide social work’s contribution to mental health care in inter-professional primary health care settings.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.006
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.392 · 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