MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3116227991 · doi:10.32370/ia_2020_12_13

The Main Aspects of the Activities of Charitable Organizations in the Legacy of Mary Ellen Richmond

2020· article· en· W3116227991 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Liudmyla Petrukhan-Scherbakova, Надія Чернуха

Bibliographic record

VenueIntellectual Archive · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Work Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubject (documents)Power (physics)CornerstoneSociologySocial workWork (physics)Public relationsLawPolitical scienceLibrary scienceEngineeringComputer scienceVisual artsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article is devoted to the analysis of the scientific heritage of Mery Elen Richmond. A cornerstone of building the social work profession, Mary Richmond was known for her ability to organize communities, her development of casework practice, as well as her ability to teach and speak intelligently on a wide array of subjects. The subject of the article is the provisions on the activities of charitable organizations in the United States during the life and work of the researcher. The article describes the main problems in the activities of charitable organizations of the late 19th - early 20th centuries During this time Richmond was connected to the COS, she demonstrated her qualities as a leader, teacher, and practical theorist; ; revealed the functions of charitable organizations in the theory and practice of M. E. Richmond; described possible provisions for improving the activities of charitable organizations in accordance with the legacy of Mary Ellen Richmond, who is considered a principle founder of the profession of social work and the importance of professional education. Her first principle was that care had to focus on the person within their situation. Building on extensive research, she developed what she labelled ‘social diagnosis’. Her famous circle diagram visualized the correspondence of client and environment. Richmond identified six sources of power that are available to clients and their social workers: sources within the household, in the person of the client, in the neighborhood and wider social network, in civil agencies, in private and public agencies. This is a precursor of the system theory that was so popular in 1970’s social work.

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 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)0.008
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.724
Threshold uncertainty score0.962

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntellectual ArchiveSame topicSocial Work Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207