Bibliographic record
Abstract
English Despite the fast development of social work education, scholars in China are eager to import and adapt western social work knowledge which is portrayed as a monolithic entity. Using a case study of American social work literature, we question the existence of a monolithic system of western knowledge. French En dé pit du développement rapide de la formation en travail social, les étudiants chinois sont pressé s d’importer et d’adapter le savoir occidental en matière de travail social, qui est dé crit comme une entité monolithique. Àpartir d’une é tude de cas s’appuyant sur de la documentation amé ricaine en travail social, on s’interroge sur l’existence d’un système monolithique de savoir occidental. Spanish A pesar del acelerado desarrollo de la enseñ anza del trabajo social, los estudiantes en China tienen muchas ganas de importar y adaptar el conocimiento del trabajo social occidental, el cual es descrito como una entidad monolítica. Utilizando un estudio de caso de la literatura del trabajo social americano, nosotros cuestionamos la existencia de un sistema monolótico del conocimiento occidental.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".