MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112632315 · doi:10.1080/00377317.2020.1859432

Mentalizing as Mechanism: An Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis of Workplace Social Support in Intimate Partner Violence Practice

2020· article· en· W3112632315 on OpenAlex

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSmith College Studies in Social Work · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityConcordia University
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et Culture
KeywordsMechanism (biology)Interpretative phenomenological analysisMentalizationPsychologySocial workSocial psychologyDomestic violencePsychotherapistSociologySuicide preventionPoison controlEpistemologyMedicineQualitative researchMedical emergencyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intimate partner violence (IPV) social workers are at elevated risk of developing post-traumatic stress resulting from ongoing exposure to potentially distressing client disclosures. Workplace social support (WSS) may play a role in moderating that risk. This study used the interpretive phenomenological analysis approach to gain understanding about the phenomenon of WSS from the perspective of IPV social workers. Perceptions of having received WSS, or that WSS was available, were formed by worker’s specific needs being met and by their having access to support people with disciplinary skills. The theory of mentalization is advanced here as a framework from which to understand the processes leading to IPV social worker perceptions of WSS. Implications for social work practice and further research are presented.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.371
Threshold uncertainty score0.921

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.395 · 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