Consistency and change: internationally educated social workers compare interpretations and approaches in Canada and their countries of origin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Every year, a number of social workers who have studied and obtained their qualifications abroad immigrate to Canada. They do so to start a new life and pursue their careers in one of the Canadian provinces (Brown et al, 2015; Pullen Sansfaçon et al, 2012). However, even with the ‘Global Qualifying Standards’ (International Federation of Social Workers [IFSW], 2015), a document that recognises the increased labour mobility within the profession and aims for consistency within and between the different qualifications, social work still needs to adapt to local variations and is considered highly dependent on the cultural and socio-political context where it is practised (Fouché et al, 2013; Beddoe et al, 2012; Hussein et al, 2010; Welbourne et al, 2007). This specific social work imperative led us to investigate the processes by which transnational social workers adapt to new work contexts in Canada and, more specifically, to explore issues related to knowledge transfer in different practice contexts, and to further investigate how social workers really adapt to local variations.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".