Determining the Structure of Project Competence of Future Bachelors of Social Work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the general structure of competence, the components of theoretical knowledge, transformative activity, moral and spiritual values and self-organization are considered, and two marginal levels are distinguished: a higher level of competence and a minimum acceptable level of competence.Taking into account the specific professional activity of future bachelors of social work, the structure of project competence is detailed as follows.In the theoretical knowledge component, the marginal levels differ in the limited knowledge at the minimum permissible level only by the management aspect, and the cross-sectoral understanding of the concepts of "project" and "project management" -at the highest level of competence.The transformative activities for the highest level of competence include methods for substantiating contradictions, to which the project is directed, determining the ideal end result, formulating a realistic project goal, decomposing the project, executing the project, introspection, as well as methods of managing teamwork.For minimal competence, only certain project management methods are foreseen, in particular, excluding teamwork management methods.In the component of moral and spiritual values, it is obligatory for both levels to act on the basis of the value attitude to the client of social work as a subject of self-government.As part of self-organization component, we consider projects developed by students as means of self-organization of their further transformative professional activity, but a higher level of competence (as opposed to minimum competence) involves taking into account the activities of other students and environmental events.
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 | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".