Towards Understanding the Client and Observer in the Peer-to-Peer Role-Play
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The longstanding use of the peer-to-peer role-play offers social work students an introduction to developing their skills of intervention in a simulated client encounter. This experiential exercise permits students to practice the generalist skills involved in engaging, assessing, intervening, and terminating with clients in distress. Although the student social worker is the central player of this exercise, the client and observer have integral roles. To explore Bachelor of Social Work students’ (N = 18) perceptions of the client and observer roles, focus groups were conducted. Thematic analysis revealed the following themes for the client role: 1) Helping the student social worker; 2) Increased empathy for the character; 3) Increased vulnerability; 4) The need for feedback; and 5) Coping with triggers. The themes for the observer role include: 1) Learning through observing; and 2) Placement of observers. Implications for social work educators who use the peer-to-peer role-play are offered.
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 | 0.045 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| 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".