Етичні стандарти та кодекси у соціальній роботі: міжнародний і національний контекст
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is dedicated to the analysis of ethical standards and codes in social work at both international and national levels, aiming to identify guidelines for Ukrainian practice. In the context of globalization processes and rapid transformations of social service systems in Ukraine, it is crucial to ensure that professional activities comply with contemporary ethical requirements, human rights, and principles of social justice. The study reviews global ethical principles adopted by the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) and the International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW), as well as national codes from Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom. The research is based on the results of a desk study (desk research). The analysis demonstrates that ethical codes can operate at different levels (global, national, organizational). They serve both guiding and protective functions, define professional behavior in complex situations, provide a basis for disciplinary procedures, and support professional autonomy. The study highlights the diversity of approaches to applying ethical standards at the national level. The Ukrainian context is also examined: the “Ethical Code of Social Work Specialists of Ukraine,” adopted in 2005, is now outdated, and a professional regulatory system is practically absent; several professional associations exist, but none hold the status of an authorized regulator. Based on comparative analysis, the study proposes updating the code to align with international standards, human rights, and principles of inclusion, as well as developing a professional regulatory system and mechanisms to monitor compliance with ethical norms. The findings may be useful for improving national policy on social service quality, educational programs, and social work practice in Ukraine.
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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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 it