Bibliographic record
Abstract
Doing critical social work is a contested matter, with commentators noting significant challenges to its practice. A moral concept that was once commonly regarded as having universal acceptance and applicability, &s;social justice&s; is highly contested, neither timeless nor absolute. Empowerment has three different dimensions, variously labelled: personal; interpersonal/social/cultural; and structural/political. The notion of an equal or dialogical&s; relationship between practitioners and those with whom they are working is an idea long promoted in critical social work. The lens through which workers analyse or assess the social problems of those with whom they work is crucial to critical social work practice. Choices and options can be opened up for those who are oppressed and marginalised through such actions that directly challenge and resist oppressive social relations and conditions. Advocacy involves an attempt to influence the behaviour of decision-makers, and is something that social workers practice on a regular basis.
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 | 0.037 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.008 |
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".