The Development of Trust and Mutual Understanding in Social Relations as a Component of the Social Work Education Contents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article investigates the issue of training future social workers to apply mediation, an approach of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), as exemplified by the Lviv Polytechnic National University experiences in this area. Based on the adaptation of the USA and Canada experiences in mediation with due regard to Ukrainian peculiarities the model of teaching social work students to apply mediation is defined and incorporated into the contents of teaching. The course outlines are developed based on the identified mediation skills. An emphasis is placed on the transformative concept of mediation highlighting a constructive dialogue, strengthening relations based on trust and mutual understanding, and achieving positive change in people and their problem solution ways. The pedagogical factors and their impact on the development of professional competences of social workers in mediation are identified. The effectiveness of the developed Ukrainian program is proved on the basis of the pedagogical experiment, which illustrates the readiness of future social workers to apply mediation for the purpose of reaching agreement in conflict resolution, and avoiding confrontation and promoting the development of trust and mutual understanding in social relations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".