Social Work's Dialogue with the Arts: Epistemological and Practice Intersections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite historical acknowledgements and recent advancements in conceptualizing the arts for social work, the calls for arts inclusion have yet to stimulate a sustained research program. Taking creative writing as exemplary art, this inquiry gathered accounts of key constructs related to the arts. Using M. van Manen's (1997) phenomenological-hermeneutic methodology, 31 creative writers, teachers of creative writing, “arts inclusive” social workers, and social work researchers completed in-depth interviews. The participants’ accounts illustrated that the arts’ intersection with social work facilitated integrated, nondual epistemologies for practice. The social workers also highlighted the limits and benefits of including the arts in practice. The proposed arts infusion approach calls upon an enlarged view of human reality for social work within an ongoing ethic of care.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.163 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.043 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".