MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2939734480 · doi:10.7202/1058477ar

“THINGS I CANNOT CHANGE”

2019· article· en· W2939734480 on OpenAlex
Stephanie Baker Collins, Sheila Cranmer-Byng

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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social work review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistressArgument (complex analysis)Context (archaeology)Moral disengagementWork (physics)SociologyPsychologySocial psychologyMedicinePsychotherapistEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Moral distress is an important topic, particularly given the impact of unacknowledged moral distress on professional practice, including social work. Interviews with Ontario Works (OW) case managers working in regional offices in southern Ontario form the backdrop of an analysis of moral distress in the context of a highly rule-bound environment combined with unmet needs. This study focuses particularly on the role of structural constraints, such as policy restrictions as contributors to moral distress. The concept of moral distress is complicated by noting that distress is not always in response to a desire to act in the best interest of the client. An argument is developed that situating moral distress in a discussion of professional and feminist ethics encourages a deeper analysis of the implications of moral distress for professionals working in restrictive policy environments.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.514
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.021

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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.315 · 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