Critical Approaches to Clinical Social Work Practice: Considerations from Contemporary Relational Psychoanalytic Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critical social workers now contend that an individual’s everyday living both shapes and is shaped by overarching social structures and discourses. As such, the subjectivity of the individual is considered an axis on which the existing social order can be either perpetuated or transformed. Transformations on the level of the individual are therefore argued to contribute to transformations on the levels of larger societal arrangements. For this reason, many critical social work theorists today argue that clinical social work practice with individuals is an essential component of effecting egalitarian forms of social change. Yet, critical social workers also widely acknowledge that clinical social work theory is currently a relatively underdeveloped area within critical social work literature. Contemporary relational psychoanalytic theory offers highly textured accounts of the interdependence of sociopolitical arrangements and cultural discourses, on the one hand, and the subjectivity of the individual, on the other, and has much to contribute to critical social workers’ current efforts to overcome oppressive relations on personal, interpersonal, and ultimately, societal levels.
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 | 0.069 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.178 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".