MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285006418 · doi:10.1080/02615479.2022.2097213

Service user involvement in social work education: a scoping review

2022· review· en· W4285006418 on OpenAlex
Keith Adamson, Ami Goulden, Judith Logan, Jean Hammond

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Work Education · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Work Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsSocial workScope (computer science)Service (business)Work (physics)Public relationsSociologyKnowledge managementMedical educationPolitical scienceMedicineComputer scienceBusinessEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Service user involvement in social work education is well-established in some regions and a new developing approach in others. For instance, since policy reform in 2002, it has been customary for service users and carers to be involved in critical aspects of professional social work education in the UK. Yet, expansion in North American contexts has been limited. The scope and extensiveness of service user involvement are increasingly varied, regardless of mandatory or voluntary educational standards. This scoping review mapped and synthesized literature from 2010 to 2018 on service user and carer involvement in social work education to identify innovative approaches and their effectiveness in practice. We used a scoping review protocol to select 35 studies and assessed the studies using a framework for the evaluation of educational programmes. Although most studies were published in the UK, there was greater representation from other regions than previously reported. The findings suggest that social work programs are adopting various approaches to integrate service users in social work education and innovative research methodologies for evaluation. The implications for social work education and practice are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.738
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.020
Science and technology studies0.0070.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.152
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.324 · 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