MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7070437388

Partners in Education: Leveraging School Social Workers to Support Transformative Equity and Well-Being Work in an Ontario K-12 Public School Board

2022· article· en· W7070437388 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Research Studies Overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformative learningTransformational leadershipSocial workContext (archaeology)Equity (law)Work (physics)Corporate governance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

School social workers (SSWs) have been an integral part of Ontario’s K-12 public education system for over one hundred years. Their unique training, skill set, and practice perspectives enables provision of comprehensive services benefitting the whole school community. The social work profession is grounded in a code of ethics committed to the advancement of social justice for all and draws from a rich history of critical theorizing and evidence-based practice to further this goal. These features of the profession ideally position SSWs to serve as leaders and partners in the school mission, particularly at a time when the need for transformative change to support all students is recognized. Yet SSWs frequently remain underutilized resources in schools. This Organizational Improvement Plan (OIP) addresses the problem of practice (PoP): the underutilization of SSWs as leaders and change partners at Leaders in Learning District School Board (LLDSB). As a former Mental Health Lead and current frontline social worker, union leader, professional practice facilitator, and member of key provincial advisory groups, I explore the organizational context at LLDSB and propose a solution to the PoP; a pilot project to promote role integration of SSWs using implementation science. Transformational and critical leadership perspectives underpin the approach to change. I develop a complementary framework for leading the change; a detailed implementation, monitoring, and evaluation plan supported by Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles; and a plan to communicate the need for change. I conclude by discussing how the change can be institutionalized and sustained beyond the pilot project.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0020.015
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.193
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)Same topicDiverse Research Studies OverviewFrench-language works237,207