Attention to Rural Populations in Social Work Journals: Findings from a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The study aimed to examine social work's scholarly attention to rural populations in a global context, given the paucity of rural social work literature in professional journals and earlier reviews showing the dominance of material emanating from the United States of America. MATERIALS AND METHOD: = 90) between 2009 and 2024. RESULTS: The study found 152 articles on rural social work published in 48 of the 90 JCR social work journals, 71% of which were research-based. Most publications came from North America (n=61), including 58 from the USA and three from Canada. Following close behind was the Asia-Pacific Region (n=60), with 25 from China. There were 18 from Africa and 10 from Europe and the UK. There were only three from South America, possibly due to the study's restriction to English-language journals. The main themes related to rural social work practice, health, professional issues, and context. DISCUSSION: The paucity of publications on rural issues contributed to minimal understanding of the complexity and diversity of rural poverty. The findings revealed remarkable similarities in knowledge shaping rural social work practice worldwide, despite regional differences. CONCLUSION: The study suggested a consistent lack of focus on rural populations within the social work profession and underscored the importance of understanding and addressing pressing issues facing rural communities across diverse global contexts.
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 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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".