Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare Vol. 46 No. 2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social work has experienced unique tensions related to its professional identity and dual purpose of social reform and individualized treatment.Scholars have represented this dual purpose, epitomized by Jane Addams and Mary Richmond, as indicating irreconcilable differences.The purpose of this paper is to investigate the writings and speeches of Mary Richmond and Jane Addams, and, based on this inquiry, to assert that their respective approaches to social work are much more unified than often suggested.Specific themes examined include: acceptance and need for each other's perspectives; compatibility and unity of perspectives; and their collaboration as critical for effecting social change.With this more complex understanding of Richmond and Addams, the authors speculate about how a more holistic approach to social work practice is needed in the 21st century.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.005 |
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".