The migration of social workers to and from the United Kingdom: a comparative perspective
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports findings from a large mixed-method study exploring the migration to the United Kingdom (UK) of social workers trained in Australia, Canada, India, Romania, South Africa, the US, and Zimbabwe, and the migration of British trained social workers to Australia. The project aimed at exploring the motivations for migration, the experiences of integration, and the impact of culture on these. This article focuses on the quantitative findings and will use some of the qualitative data to further explain and interrogate the differences between these groups based on their country of origin. The findings show the greater challenges migrants from developing countries have experienced, including lack of recognition of their qualifications and experience, and discrimination. The findings also show that contrary to common assumptions, the migration experiences of social workers coming from Australia, Canada and the US are not as easy as expected. American social workers who migrated to the UK turned out to be the group least professionally satisfied. The British in Australia on the other hand, were the most satisfied. Implications for practice and future research are explored.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it