Mechanisms of Gatekeeping in the Social Work Profession: Lessons Learned from Canada, Hong Kong and South Korea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Striving to be a full-fledged profession with statutorily delegated self-regulatory authority has been a goal of the social work profession in many countries since Abraham Flexner’s (1915 ‘Is social work a profession?’, Paper presented at the Forty-Second Annual Session of The National Conference of Charities and Correction, Baltimore, MD, pp. 581, 584–8, 590. denial of its professional status in the USA. A full self-regulation requires two gatekeeping mechanisms: professional education and registration. Whereas professional social work education has been in place in many parts of the world, the establishment of a mandatory registration system is still limited to a few countries. Although two mechanisms share the same mandate and function as self-regulation, they tend to be discussed separately in the literature. How they connect and work with each other is seldom explored. In this article, by examining the development of these two mechanisms in Canada, Hong Kong and South Korea, we present three different ways of how these mechanisms are connected and discuss observations of those connections.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".