MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3178232270 · doi:10.22329/csw.v9i1.5764

Book Review

2019· article· en· W3178232270 on OpenAlexaffvenue
James P. Coyle

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Social Work · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClass (philosophy)EpistemologyDialogical selfComputer scienceSociologyCognitive scienceManagement scienceArtificial intelligencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This textbook is a helpful addition for Social Work curriculum. It highlights the application of theory to practice and chooses some interesting theoretical models that support social work practice. The book is divided into three parts: Understanding Theories and Tools for Translation; Models, Metaphors, and Maps Applied; and Theoretical Integration. Like many HBSE texts, this one begins with a discussion of theory and theorizing. In addition, Forte adds a number of methods for understanding or translating theoretical models, including the use of core metaphors, theoretical maps, and role models from theorists and practitioners associated with each model. This introductory section describes the theoretical foundation for the discussion that follows. Ten theoretical models are presented: Ecological, Systems, Biology, Cognitive, Psychodynamic, Behaviorism, Symbolic Interactionism, Social Role, Economic, and Critical theories. The chapter titles all start with the word ‘Applied’ denoting the emphasis of understanding each model as a framework for social work practice. Each model is presented using the same structure: Introduction, Exemplary Models, Root Metaphors, Core Assumptions, Approach to Human Development, Selective Propositions, Mapping, Limits, and an example of Theory Application to a problem area of interest to Social Work. In addition each chapter ends with a number of Learning Activities suggestions which could be used for in-class exercises or for homework assignments. The final part of the book discusses a number of methods for integrating theoretical models and describes the author’s preference for a Dialogical Approach in which theoretical discussions compare, match, challenge, sequence, or synthesize different approaches.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.007

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.333 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Social WorkSame topicCounseling, Therapy, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207