MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4300066617 · doi:10.46692/9781447333371.017

Recognising transnational social workers in Australia

2018· other· en· W4300066617 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Angelika Papadopoulos

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicResearch in Social Sciences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The migrant is the political figure of our time. (Nail, 2015, p 235) This chapter explores the Australian approach to the recognition of transnational social workers migrating to Australia. Prior research into transnational social work has: questioned the portability of values, skills and knowledge across cultural contexts (McDonald et al, 2003; Walsh et al, 2010; Pullen-Sansfaçon et al, 2012); explored the experiences of migrant social workers’ adaptation to destination country practices (Kornbeck, 2004; Hussein et al, 2010; Bartley et al, 2011; Beddoe et al, 2012; Sims, 2012; Harrison, 2013; Beddoe and Fouché, 2014; Hussein, 2014); and also noted the ethical implications of social workers migrating from countries that need their services (IFSW, 2012), and the obligations of destination countries to migrant social workers (McDonald et al, 2003; Walsh et al, 2010; Pullen-Sansfaçon et al, 2012; Fouché et al, 2016). As the opening quote from Nail suggests, these themes all touch on the political, and they inform the background to a critical analysis of current processes of professional recognition in Australia. Empirical research has recently begun to explore the complexity of recognition processes as a significant variable in the migration experiences of social workers in Canada (Fang, 2012; Brown et al, 2015) and New Zealand (Fouché et al, 2014a, 2014b). In the Australian case, there is a lack of scholarship and data illustrating the migration patterns of social workers, the absence of which relates to Australian social work's ambiguous professional status. While the occupation of ‘social worker’ comprehends a broad range of practices across myriad contexts, one characteristic of social work that clearly transcends national boundaries is the espoused self-concept of the profession as ethical. This is expressed through codes and standards of practice to which practitioners are expected to adhere across fields of practice, framed both nationally and internationally. Comparing national codes of ethics of social work practice, Banks (2012, p 111) identified common orienting ethical principles across nations: ‘respect for persons, respect for and promotion of the autonomy of service users, promotion of human welfare, social justice and professional integrity’ – a commonality she attributes to the influence of the International Federation of Social Work (IFSW).

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)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.011
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicResearch in Social SciencesFrench-language works237,207