{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01791867677463818, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00022972662531587412, 'mean_word_length': 5.694003075345976, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 2, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
SPECIFICATION OF SOCIAL WORK INTERVENTION MODELS

Based on an epistemological criterion of classification of Social Work, three models are reviewed: positivist-systemic, dialectical-critical and comprehensive-interpretive. A documentary study was carried out with an updated and specific selection of models. The results show the prevalence of the three paradigms, but also the proliferation of hybrid models. Therefore, lines of research are recommended around comprehensive models that recover the approaches of the comprehensive-interpretive tradition and can be included in the positivist-systemic and dialectical-critical models.


Introduction
The objective of this work is to establish a taxonomy of the Social Work intervention models, although the term "intervention" has been questioned and replaced by the concept of intercession to differentiate the dependency relationship between the Social Work professional with respect to a subject, scenario or organization in relation to dialogue and co-responsibility between the parties involved.
In this sense, it is proposed to classify the models according to the epistemological foundation on which they are supported, even when those of the positivist-systemic type prevail, given the history of Social Work, some models are comprehensiveinterpretive as those implemented in Local Development and others are dialecticalcritics as is the case of the models developed in Latin America.
However, over the years, intervention models have incorporated different variables or categories from each of the epistemological traditions. Therefore, the objective of this paper will be to establish a classification based on the three paradigmatic approaches, balances and prospects.
For this purpose, a documentary, retrospective and exploratory study was carried out with an intentional selection of sources indexed to leading repositories in Latin America; DIALNET, LATINDEX and REDALYC. The information was processed in an epistemological-taxonomic analysis matrix and contrasted with the most representative models of the literature reviewed.
Such research will facilitate discussion about the establishment of a general model for Social Work that meets global and local demands based on available resources.

Contemporary Social Work Models
Contemporary Social Work models can be classified according to their epistemological conception, the categories or variables they study, the trajectories between these constructs and the assumptions they propose in order to explore, describe, explain or understand phenomena related to local development.
In this way, the positivist-systemic models focus their interest in the dissemination, implementation and evaluation of public policies on the vulnerable, marginalized or excluded sectors of local development. They often disseminate institutional values and norms with the aim of establishing an agenda of needs, expectations and opportunities that will be complemented by the programs and strategies of local authorities in terms of health promotion, sustainability or pacification.
However, positivist-systemic models, in accordance with institutional guidelines, avoid the initiatives of civil organizations. The dialectical-critical models will address the opinions and questions of social leaders to highlight the limits of the State rectory, patrimonial institutionalism or clientelist assistance.
However, the proposal for the incidence of dialectical-critical models seems to suggest the replacement of powers and instead a provisional administration that would not guarantee a favorable transition to the excluded, violated or marginalized sectors , but rather a permanent negotiation on the care priorities, support initiatives or social change.
It will be the comprehensive-interpretive models that, based on a deep and complex study of local traditions, will generate advocacy proposals according to the type of political actor and institutional structures. In this model, empathy, trust, commitment, entrepreneurship, innovation and satisfaction are essential to establish a common agenda between rulers and governed. It is a model of negotiation, discussion, agreements and permanent co-responsibilities between economic, political and social actors.
However, the three preponderant models of contemporary Social Work seem to merge into professional practice; Mediation or moderation are two examples of hybrid models based on some characteristic of the wielded models.

Positivist-systemic models focused on equity among actors
If the positivist-systemic models seek to reproduce the differences between rulers and governed, considering Social Work as a translator of public policies on the needs of marginalized, excluded or violated sectors, then the equity-centered model maintains that 1) relations between rulers and governed they are gestated in a scenario of freedoms; 2) such opportunities correspond to programs and strategies of civic education and training in educational and labor fields; 3) Such processes are not only financed by the State, but also disseminated by the institutions through equity values .
Therefore, the positivist-systematic model assumes that society is provided with information to establish the priorities of its development. It will be the governing State, manager and administrator of the resources that will define the development guidelines.
Equity is a phase of civility that reflects public policies, programs and strategies to promote health, education and employment. Based on Human Development parameters, positivist-systemic models establish the degree of development of a group, community or society.
In this way, a culture of equity implies opportunities distributed in such a way that the possibilities of development are symmetrical in each sector of civil society. In this sense, the positivist-systemic model seeks to reproduce the programs and strategies that have been most successful to guarantee the continuity of the administration and the management and public administration system.
In the excluded, marginalized or vulnerable sectors, the positivist-systemic models seek to adjust the initiatives to the institutional guidelines. They even establish a local agenda with topics of greater political interest linked to the elections, to the evaluation of governments or the promotion of candidates.
The nature of this model requires the participation of the media as disseminators of topics, opportunities and capabilities. Once the communication professionals have generated a series of topics that will be reflected in the opinions of civil society, and then the Social Work professionals will complement the work with the implementation of programs and strategies of subsidy, remission or incentives to the sectors marginalized, excluded and violated from health, education and employment services. That is to say, social representations around municipal services will generate an expectation of attention that will be attended by Social Work professionals.
In the implementation of the model, Social Work professionals will confine citizen proposals to the guidelines of local development policies in order to reduce social mobilization to its minimum expression or encourage regulated participation in terms of promoting the payment of fees or health promotion, as well as citizen reporting in cases of insecurity or violence.
The instrument par excellence of the positivist-systemic model is the mediation of conflicts when the actors belong exclusively to the excluded, marginalized or vulnerable sectors, but palliative care will be put into practice in cases of extreme violence, insecurity, health, lag or unemployment.
Health promotion, crime prevention or dissemination of environmental awareness is instrumented to strengthen the individual and group capacities of civil sectors.

Dialectical-critical models focused on the contradictions between the actors
The dialectical-critical model has observed authoritarian scenarios where the media, institutions and organizations are subject to the designs of a military board or caudillista group in power. Enforced disappearances, imprisonment and other repressive acts forced Social Work professionals to adopt political dissent strategies through questioning, denunciation or protest.
During authoritarian political regimes this model emerged to give voice to those who were victims of the genocides or dictators. Therefore, they are models that were used and developed to understand and influence scenarios of extreme violence, insecurity, pollution or unhealthiness, since the cases of victims were not only shot, but also documented.
In this sense, the dialectical-critical model sought to demonstrate the atrocities of dictatorial governments, although a dialogue was also proposed between the victims and dissidents to the regime with the intention of joining efforts and carrying out the self-management of resources for the social change. However, the model advanced towards critical speeches, answering or dissenting, but it was not linked to scientific and technological advances that would allow it to build a system of government respectful of individual rights and guarantees, as well as the creation of civil organizations for redistribution of administrative powers within the State.
The main instrument and virtue of the dialectical-critical model is the diffusion of face-to-face questions that allowed it to add adherents, but confined it to a one-dimensional promotion of problems, censoring its participation in the media and in academic circles.
However, the dialectical-critical model proposes a spiral renewal of the discourses to adjust the purposes of the model to local contexts, although without taking into account the opinion of enlightened sectors or leaderships.

Comprehensive-interpretive models focused on co-responsibility among the actors
The dismantling of the welfare state caused that Social Work will depart from institutional guidelines, clientelist welfare and popular interventionism. Once neoliberalism was consummated, the policies were evaluated to legitimize their function, or to establish their budgets. In this context, the comprehensive-interpretive model was proposed to account for the needs of groups close to local authorities.
The emergence of neoliberal governance allowed the comprehensive-interpretive model to be developed in contexts where the increase in per capita income, quality of life and subjective well-being facilitated the management, lobbying and advocacy of civil society on political spheres. This is the case of environmental groups that not only organized to limit production and consumption, the promotion of the vote for environmental proposals, but also encouraged mobilization and collective action in favor of environmental conservation.
However, civil society was fragmented into organized groups versus conformist groups before the neoliberal policies of the State. At the dawn of the information society in Latin America, the comprehensive interpretive model is of unusual importance with respect to the rights of the audience to receive updated, impartial and specific content from the media. Therefore, the three wielded models focused on the actors rather than on the quality of the processes and products, seem to circumvent the integral professional training in which the Social Work of the future attends complex phenomena from an inter, multi and transdisciplinary vision.

Final considerations
The contribution of this work to the state of knowledge lies in the discussion and taxonomy of three models (positivist-systemic, dialectical-critical and comprehensiveinterpretive), as well as three hybrid models that predominate in the formation and professionalization of contemporary Social Work.
The virtues of the wielded models consist of the pragmatic approach to the phenomena of unhealthiness, unemployment or lag that current societies present, no longer as central themes of their agenda, but as needs observed in Latin America that are also reflected in the indices of Human development.
Therefore, an integrating model of the models would be holistic. It is a model focused on professional training and professional practice of Social Work. In this sense, it exceeds the limits of the positivist-systemic model by incorporating professional practice, since the systematization of the needs, expectations and capacities of the groups that are violated, marginalized or excluded complement the theory of vocational training and institutional guidelines.
In the case of the dialectical-critical model, the proximity to the civil sectors regarding the questions of the political system, programs and government strategies around disease prevention, justice procurement or health promotion is added.
Finally, the holistic model incorporates the approach to local customs and practices to highlight the importance of a method when designing a negotiation strategy, agreements and co-responsibility between political and social actors.