MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033702148

THE ETHYCAL PRINCIPLES OF PROESSIONAL CONDUCT BETWEEN THE CODE OF ETHICS OF THE BULGARIAN SOCIAL WORKERS AND THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS CODE OF ETHICS

2016· article· en· W3033702148 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gergana Avramova

Bibliographic record

VenueKnowledge International Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Work Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthical codeEngineering ethicsInformation ethicsSocial workPublic relationsProfessional conductNursing ethicsSociologySocial psychologyPsychologyPolitical scienceLawEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ethical behavior is at the heart of each profession.Ethics describes how to put into practice the values of society and the individual. In this sense, the set in anycode of ethics principles can be corrective in cases where there is a problematic situation of moral character inevery professional field. The content of the codes is aimed at building a base of moral rules to serve as a guidefor action in situations of ethical concern, where possible conflict between personal and professional values mayoccur.Any code of conduct aims to create a guide of ethical principles and standards that form the basis of the ethicalconduct of social worker. Principles Code of Ethics presents, consider topical problems because they affect thevery essence of social work, namely the application of moral principles in practice. The mission of social workis supporting people in self-realization, as well as when necessary to assist them in the provision of basic needs,with particular attention to the needs of those who are vulnerable, disadvantaged or living in poverty.The focus of social work is directed to those situations which contain in themselves or contribute to theemergence of moral conflicts and ethical dilemmas. The ethics of social work contains no ready solutions toproblematic situations, and provides the basis on which the consultants to build their skills in analyzing andresolving social conflicts caused by various ethical problems. The task of each social worker is aimed atdeveloping resources and skills to contribute to the fulfillment of individual, social and national interests andaspirations, and to achieve social justice for all.In this sense, both the Code of Ethics of the Bulgarian social workers and the Canadian Association of socialworkers Code of Ethics have achieved the main goal of any code of ethics, having pointed in its preamble thestatement, that the Code of Ethics is a guide for action in situations of ethical concern to which social workersshould adhere as a basis justifying their personal ethical decision without limiting their professional freedom.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.695
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0140.052
Scholarly communication0.0160.006
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0110.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnowledge International JournalSame topicSocial Work Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207