Review of supportive counseling theories with newcomers in the field of social work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report explores the experiences of my Master of Social Work advanced practicum, which took place in non-profit settlement agency, Peel Multicultural Council. This project stemmed from my desire to further my social work skills in regard to community outreach when working with newcomers during such a pressing time for Canadian immigration. With newcomers arriving everyday into the country, and generations of immigrants now representing many members of the Canadian population. The advanced practicum focused on implementing theoretical concepts and frameworks into practice, through supportive counseling and advocacy work. The initial theories and frameworks which were chosen included critical race theory, ecological systems theory, strengths-based theory, cultural competency frameworks, and antioppressive practice frameworks. This outline evolved within a few days to include solution focused therapy, and task centered practice as they were found to be beneficial when working with this population. Throughout this practicum I was able to develop both my professional and theoretical skills required to assess clients’ needs and connect them to the appropriate resources and pathways to assist with their settlement difficulties. This helped me to develop my professional skills as a social worker at both the community and individual level. Overall, this final report aims to work as a tool to reflect on the advantages and disadvantages of using the aforementioned theories, and the effectiveness of these theories in this specific advanced practicum context, whilst searching for other theories which may be better suited in the field of 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 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 | 0.018 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".