Evolution over time in choosing a career as a social worker
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aims to understand the evolution over time of the choice of a career in social work and to identify the parameters that influenced the representation of social work. We conducted a cross-sectional study with repeated measures surveying students enrolled in the first two years of the Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) program between 2001 and 2019 at the University of Sherbrooke (Québec, Canada). Analysis of the responses of 431 students aged 18 to 24 showed that most respondents were female. Gender-based comparative analyses suggested that male students entering in social work studies were older than female students. In addition, almost 66% indicated having a personal life experience which led them to social work. Overall, the main function of social work perceived by respondents was help (57.8%). However, comparative analyses showed this proportion significantly decreased between 2001 and 2010 (64.4%) to 2011–2019 (51.4%). This observed trend might be associated with the decrease in political or ‘social justice’ motivations of students in social work observed over the past decades in several countries around the world. This article is based on the first study conducted in Québec that attempts to describe the profile of students enrolled in a BSW program.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".