Bibliographic record
Abstract
What do you have to know, today, to be an effective group worker and what are the different group work approaches? With 110 articles and entries, this book provides a comprehensive overview of social work with groups from its initial development to its astounding range of diverse practice today with many populations in different places.\nThe articles have been written by social workers trained in the group approach from the United States, Canada, England, Australia, Spain and Japan, and all involved are well known group workers, acknowledged as experts in the area. The book covers all aspects of social work with groups: including its history, values, major models, approaches and methods, education, research, journals, phases of development, working with specific populations and ages, plus many more. Each article includes references which can be a major resource for future exploration in the particular subject area.\nBoth editors have many years of productive work in group work practice and other areas and are board members of The Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups. The Encyclopedia of Social Work with Groups will be of interest to students, practitioners, social work faculty, novice and experienced group workers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".