Social work consultation to Child and Family Services workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This practicum focused on development of skill and knowledge related to adding a consultative element to assessment of parental functioning. The consultees were eight social workers in Child and Family Services agencies, both in the city of Winnipeg and in rural Manitoba. The consultation was provided to workers with a range of experience and education. The consultation stages included preparation, a contracting stage, data collection, assessment, and formulation of conclusions and recommendations. The practicum developed an eclectic model of consultation, utilizing concepts from various models. Client, consultee, program and administrative-centered consultation were utilized (Caplan, 1970). Elements from the expertise, the doctor/patient and process models (Schein, 1978) were integrated into the practicum. It also included a triadic relationship and a collaborative approach (Goodstein, 1978; Hollister and Miller, 1877; Kurpius, 1978; Rapoport, 1971 and Shulman, 1987). The Schein (1978) emphasis on a balanced delivery of content and process was experienced as difficult to operationalize. The evaluation occurred through interviewing the consultees at the termination of the process and through a reflective journal kept by the student. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.003 |
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".