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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The four articles that appear in this issue are important on three accounts.Firstly, they represent the international fl avour of the journal -with papers from Scotland, Canada, the United States and England respectively.Secondly, two of the papers explore an issue that is timely and becoming increasingly important in education circles, namely, the use of on-line group sessions in teaching.Thirdly, the articles in this edition make a strong contribution to the knowledge base that underpins groupwork theory and practice and, as such, make important reading.In addition to these papers, there is a perceptive and engaging personal refl ection on the 11th European Groupwork Symposium that took place in York this July, plus two book reviews.This edition begins with Carol Lewis' s personal refl ections on the York Groupwork Symposium.For those of you who were unable to attend this symposium, Carol' s thoughts on her experience give a rich and insightful account of this event.I agree that this occasion is more than a conference -it is a coming together of like-minded people from different contexts and countries who enjoy 'thinking group' in all its diversity and complexity.As Carol notes, the setting of St. John' s College is particularly wonderful for this kind of exploration.However, Carol' s article covers other themes and concerns that we feel strongly about as groupworkers, particularly the place held by groupwork within contemporary social work.The fi rst article is an illuminating paper from Scotland, written by Tim Kelly, Andrew Lowndes and Debbie Tolson, describing a qualitative study examining the stages of group development in relation to on-line group sessions for nurses.The article looks at group development and the 'dominant paradigms' that have emerged over the years.One dominant theory that has remained relatively unchallenged states that groups are not really productive and fully functioning until power and control issues have been resolved.This project tested this paradigm in ways that question some of the theories that underpin the stages of group development -thereby contributing to our knowledge and the ongoing debate in relation
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.017 |
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 it