Bibliographic record
Abstract
Challenges to the way social work in Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia is practised are currently emerging from critical and postcolonial questioning (Besserab, 2000; Briskman, 2003; Gilbert, 2001). The shared heritage has led to a set of practices which owe much to modernist views of the world leading to universalist approaches. While this is changing, bicultural and cross-cultural practice continues to present difficulties for practitioners who struggle to position themselves in ways that meet the requirements of appropriate and sensitive cultural work. This paper argues that in order to create appropriate practices the social work profession needs to perceptively assess how it uses knowledge practices from a continuing neo/colonising project. Using the notion of “double binds” (Ellsworth, 1997), I examine some of the influential practices associated with the ostensible bicultural and cross-cultural pursuit. I draw on research conducted with social work practitioners to demonstrate how the neo-colonial process may be countered.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.104 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.040 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.039 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".