Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of YouTube as a social media platform for the sharing and preservations of materials COVID-19 pandemic provides an opportunity to consider the perspectives of social workers and social work organizations during this global crisis. Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, this chapter considers how social workers, social work organizations and associations have used social media during the initial crisis period of the global pandemic (March 1 to August 31, 2020) from a Canadian perspective. This analysis frames social media platform YouTube as an open-access archive allowing for the sharing of institutional, organizational and popular/grassroots understandings, reflecting both formal/official and informal/unofficial narratives about the pandemic from a social work perspective. A discussion of the methodology and approach to the inquiry is provided, followed by a discussion of the research findings emphasizing five themes: 1) the role of social work[ers] in COVID-19 responses; 2) changes to social work practice resulting from pandemic protocols; 3) responses from social work professional (regulators) and representational organizations (associations); 4) expressions of praise and congratulations to social workers; 5) social problems/issues related to the pandemic. A table of sample videos/links to online materials is included as an appendix to the chapter.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.181 | 0.066 |
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".