Bibliographic record
Abstract
English This article explores some of the most salient of the oppressions that are directly related to international and Canadian immigration policy discourses and practices. A conceptual framework for understanding the relationship between social justice and oppression in social work practice is introduced. This will determine the issues that need to be addressed by social work practitioners. French Cet article examine quelques-uns des facteurs d'oppression les plus évidents qui se dégagent du discours et des pratiques de l'immigration canadienne et internationale. On y établit un cadre conceptuel pour faciliter la compré- hension de la relation entre justice sociale et oppression dans la pratique du travail social. Ce cadre permet de définir les questions dont doivent tenir compte les intervenants du travail social. Spanish En este artículo se exploran algunos de los factores má s importantes de opresió n relacionados directamente con las prá cticas y discursos de la polí- tica canadiense e internacional de inmigració n. Ser introduce un marco conceptual para entender la relació n entre la justicia social y la opresió n en la prá ctica del trabajo social. Esto determinará los temas que necesitan ser abordados por los practicantes de trabajo social.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".