Position and Tasks of Communication in Japanese Social Work Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have been doing research in social work communication, particularly with a view to finding how communication should be and how we should educate students, with the assumption that it should suit the Japanese scene of practice, and it should also suit Japanese culture and society. In this respect, this paper does a review of social work textbooks to see whether or not communication has been discussed, and if so how and in what respect it has been dealt with, as part of our literature review. At the same time, this paper touches upon social work education in Canada, since Canadian social work education seems to have been under strong influence from the United States, in the same way Japanese social work education was under massive influence of American theory and practice of social work. As a result of the text review, we have found that often there is not even a mention of communication. If it is taken up at all, the topics usually center around method and skill of interviews, and communication is regarded as the method of attaining a goal in social work. Regarding social work education in Canada, students are educated to be aware of the position and significance of communication in helping practices in groups and in local communities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".