MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065329703 · doi:10.1080/10428232.2015.977377

Adversarial Allies: Care, Harm, and Resistance in the Helping Professions

2015· article· en· W2065329703 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Progressive Human Services · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of OttawaWomen's and Gender Studies et Recherches Féministes
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdversarial systemHarmResistance (ecology)SolidarityPublic relationsSocial workAllianceSociologyAmbivalencePolitical scienceLawSocial psychologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Professional encounters bestow moral esteem upon professional helpers while denigrating those who access services. Yet society is arranged in such a way that professional services are indispensable for many to survive, and service users can experience them as simultaneously helpful and oppressive. We explore the ambivalent figure of the professional “adversarial ally” working within these systems through accounts from two research studies that straddle or resist the common-sense line that separates care from harm. Professionals need to acknowledge how we are experienced as adversaries in order to better forge relationships of solidarity or “alliance” with those using social and medical services.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.342
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.226
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it