The utilization of holistic interventions to create equity within private practice through narrative therapy and response-based practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During my years in the social work field, I have worked with diverse and vulnerable populations, and I have found that clients face barriers that impede their ability to access mental health services. This has become more relevant to society as years pass and more struggles are identified, such as financial, organizational, and systemic impediments. Within my practicum placement at Currents Counselling and Consulting, I encouraged an environment involving equity within social work and private practice. I did this through narrative therapy and responsebased practice with the enmeshment of spirituality and holistic interventions. I was able to adhere to professional practice frameworks consistent with the British Columbia College of Social Workers (BCCSW) Code of Ethics. I aim to call into question how Westernized society has defined what evidence-based practice consists of and what could be used as appropriate interventions. As society evolves, we see significant benefits from approaches and interventions involving more holistic and spiritual perspectives. This report also discusses my practicum experiences, implications, need for ongoing involvement, effective self-care, and concludes with recommendations for social work practice.
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 | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".