Rethinking Epistemological Debates and Transnationalism of Sexuality between the West and Taiwan: Implications for Social Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to critically examine the social work profession's enactment of classifying a group of people as sexual minorities on the basis of the essentialist paradigm along with the Western-centred legacy of scholarship. To enhance epistemological acuity for social workers, the historical backdrop of, theoretical applications concerning, and the ongoing debate between essentialist and social constructionist approaches to sexuality are reviewed. We also conduct a transnational analysis of sexuality discourses by juxtaposing their development in the Western and Taiwanese academic scholarships to indicate the dynamics of colonisation/resistance in a non-Western context and the emerging trend of hybridity. Therefore, we underline social workers' epistemological reflexivity in practice, and further argue that an active engagement with history and alternative discursive lenses concerning sexual minority populations can lead social work practitioners and researchers to extend respect to this marginalised group in the global context.
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 | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".