MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4229541142 · doi:10.24124/2005/bpgub1287

Strengths perspective in social work practice with older adults

2005· dissertation· en· W4229541142 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Aleksandra Maksimov Nikolin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Work Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Northern British Columbia
KeywordsPracticumPsychologyTest (biology)Mental healthGriefClinical psychologyGerontologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the Master of Social Work Practicum II that took place with the Elderly Services Team of the Regional Mental Health and Addiction Services of the Northern Health Authority in Prince George was to learn about and be part of the Team's work; specifically, to participate in assessments, to co-facilitate and participate in the Older Women's Support Group, as well as to provide assistance with the Older Women ' s Support Group New Members Curriculum Research Project. Further, the practicum included a pilot study about the effectiveness of individual therapy based on the strengths perspective and cognitive therapy in social work practice with older adults. Nine older adults were provided with six individual therapy sessions to address issues such as depression, anxiety, adjustment problems, grief, and loss. Effectiveness of the therapy was measured by analyzing statistical significance of the difference between participants' pre-test and post-test mean scores on the Geriatric Depression Scale and Life Satisfaction Index. T test analysis revealed that there was no statistically significant improvement in participants' depression and life satisfaction. However, follow up interviews with research participants indicated that participants had a positive experience with individual therapy, and that they would recommend therapy to other older adults.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.382 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSocial Work Education and Practice→French-language works237,207→