Postmodernism, Spirituality, and the Creative Writing Process: Implications for Social Work Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social work, as a profession, is struggling to determine the value of postmodernism and spirituality, and how these approaches to life provide alternative ways of interpreting the universe and the nature of social work practice. Although social work is founded on both a liberal arts and a social science education, some authors are challenging social work's historical emphasis on the social sciences; they advocate that social work instead reconsider the role of the humanities as a force affecting practice. While social work continues to root its practice in modernity, determinism, and the social sciences, the possibility should be considered that postmodernism, spirituality, and the creative writing process have the potential to expand social work to a more creative and meaningful kind of practice. By exploring the relationships between power and knowledge, pathology and creativity, core identity and multiple selves, it becomes clear that our subjectivity, our human potential, and our voices can facilitate very deep intuitive, creative, and transpersonal levels of communication between the social worker and the client.
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 | 0.032 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.071 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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".