MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7162875148 · doi:10.82465/103

A clinical field practicum experience at The Caring Place

2025· other· en· W7162875148 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tammy Homes

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPracticumSocial workVariety (cybernetics)ModalitiesNarrativeClinical social workField (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report reflects my clinical counselling practicum experience at The Caring Place, located in Regina, Saskatchewan. The purpose of the practicum was to gain graduate level clinical counselling skills utilizing a variety of therapeutic modalities, including solution focused brief therapy, narrative therapy, cognitive behavioural therapy, and trauma-informed practices. The report begins with a description of the agency, the clientele it serves, and my learning goals, objectives and activities. These are followed by discussions on the social work theories that helped me framed clients’ circumstances such as family systems theory, social learning theory, and critical theories. These frameworks continue to shed light on how social and environmental factors shape clients’ concerns and life challenges, which they presented during counselling. I also provide a literature review on the therapeutic modalities I engaged in and discuss how I applied them into my sessions with clients. The final chapters include a discussion of the values and ethics considered during the practicum, including ethical dilemmas I encountered, and the challenges I experienced. This report concludes with a summary of the personal and professional growth I obtained, my future vision as a social worker, and the field of social work in general.

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)0.008
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0220.012
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0030.012
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.361 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→French-language works237,207→