Social Work and Social Service Work in Long-term Care Home Settings in Canada: A Scoping Review Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The goal of this scoping review is to identify existing knowledge and knowledge gaps on the roles, responsibilities, conditions of work, scope-of-practice, and interprofessional team participation of professional social workers and social service workers in Canadian long-term care homes. Social workers and social service workers have always worked in the long-term care home sector as allied health professionals, yet in these health care settings in Canada, their contributions and skill sets are not well known or recognized. Methods: We followed the PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) to develop a protocol that identifies the literature on social workers and social services workers’ work in long-term care homes in Canada. In consultation with a research librarian at Carleton University, we will search for literature in PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, PsycINFO, Social Work Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts and Google Scholar databases, and conduct a focused grey literature search. Discussion: As professions, occupations, and disciplines, social work and social services work are not recognized as offering clear skill sets and scopes-of-practice for long-term care home practice. This scoping review will identify knowledge and knowledge gaps and inform the next generation of practice guidelines for social workers and social service workers in long-term care home 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 | 0.108 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.007 |
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".