Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social work knowledge and skills are socially constructed. Professional social work was initiated in the Western world in the early twentieth century on the basis of a secular, euro-centric worldview (Graham, 2002, 2005). Thus, social work is shaped by the European and North American (hereafter the West) socio-cultural contexts in which it originates (Payne, 1997). However, multicultural sensitivity has been a value held by the social work profession for decades (e.g., Latting, 1990). Additionally, as professional social work is internationalised, its indigenisation has been gaining more acceptance lately world wide (Hokenstad, Khinduka, & Midgley, 1992; Hokenstad, Midgley, 1997). As well, as more and more models of social work emphasize the importance of understanding clients’ worldview for effective social work, integration of spirituality in social work is increasingly being called for. As Van Hook, Hugen, and Aguira put it, “as wholistic, empowerment-focused, and culturally appropriate approaches to social work practice become more widely adopted, the ability to integrate spirituality and religion into practice will become a critical professional skill.” (2001, p. 3). However, since Islam is a complete way of life, spirituality is viewed in Islam as uniquely comprehensive (e.g., Abdalati, 1986; Barise & France, 2004; Haneef, 1999; Lahkim, Barise, & Boukhobza, 2004; Zaid & Barise, 2004).
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".