Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic pain and (dis)Ability leaves one struggling for normalcy, trying to make sense out of the fundamental operations of one's body, the meaning of suffering, and the social construction of wellness (Jackson, 2002 Jackson, M. 2002. Pain: The fifth vital sign, Mississauga, Ontario: Random House Canada. [Google Scholar]; MacDonald, 2000 MacDonald, J. 2000. A deconstructive turn in chronic pain treatment: A redefined role for social work. Health and Social Work, 25(1): 51–58. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Oliver, 1996 Oliver, M. 1996. Understanding disability: From theory to practice, London: MacMillan Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]; Thomas, 1999 Thomas, C. 1999. Female forms: Experiencing and understanding disability, Buckingham, England: Open University Press. [Google Scholar]; Wendell, 1996 Wendell, S. 1996. The rejected body: Feminist philosophical reflections on disability, New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]). Social work and other helping professions need to find ways to learn from sufferers, to listen to their stories, deriving insight from their knowledge, in order to more effectively attend to their health care needs. Findings from a doctoral dissertation using a narrative “testimonial” methodology, framed within a postmodern anti-oppressive ideology, will be presented. This research listened to the stories of women in, or retired from, the helping professions, who are sufferers of chronic pain, specifically attending to their experiences of living with chronic pain, dealing with the medical system, and the relationship of their pain and (dis)Ability with their helping roles. Six sufferers participated—two physicians, two nurses, and two social workers—providing a cross-disciplinary lens to both their personal and work experiences. The guiding research question was, “How can the stories of women in the helping professions, who are sufferers of chronic pain and (dis)Ability, inform an anti-oppressive approach to social work practice in working with sufferers?” A close read is provided into the sufferers' professional storying, including their insights, reflections, and critiques of health services. An anti-oppressive model of social work is highlighted, extrapolated from participants' storied practices and collaborative visions for best practices in working with chronic pain sufferers.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".