BIBLIOMETRICS INSIGHTS INTO SOCIAL WORKERS’ QUALITY OF PROFESSIONAL LIFE: TRENDS AND THEMES (1981–2024)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to map the growth trends and thematic clusters in the academic literature focusing on factors affecting the professional quality of life of social workers, such as stress management, burn out, compassion fatigue, and secondary trauma. The research includes a bibliometrics analysis of 599 publications from 1981 to 2024. Data were retrieved from the Web of Science database using keyword-based search methods. Co-citation analysis, keyword analysis, and science mapping were conducted using VOSviewer software.The study reveals an annual growth rate of 33.56% in the literature, with the majority of publications originating from the United States, Israel, and Canada. Key thematic clusters identified in the literature include burnout, compassion fatigue, shared trauma, and secondary trauma. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly contributed to an increase in relevant literature. There is a need for intervention and training programs at both individual and institutional levels to enhance the professional quality of life of social workers. The study provides a literature-based roadmap for researchers in this field.
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 | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.166 | 0.245 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".