Broadening horizons: international exchanges in social work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the remit of social work professionals is, in general, locality-based, social work has a long tradition of concern about international issues. Broadening Horizons provides an engaging and original contribution to the debate on how to tackle social work problems on a global scale. Filling both a theoretical and a practice gap in the literature, the book discusses the experiences of academics, practitioners and students involved in international exchanges in social work. It draws on a major EU-Canadian exchange project as well as separate projects in countries including South Africa, the USA, China and Australia. The contributors highlight the opportunities and barriers that shaped their experience and give guidance on how to deal with both the practicalities and aspirations of living and working across borders. This book will thus be invaluable both to readers interested in the meaning and realities of international social work and to those hoping to embark on an exchange programme themselves.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".