MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134734761 · doi:10.1080/10428232.2015.1063410

The Contradiction of Helping: Inuit Oppression(s) and Social Work in Nunavut

2015· article· en· W2134734761 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Patricia Johnston, Frank Tester

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Progressive Human Services · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaArcticNet
KeywordsOppressionPrivilege (computing)CapitalismPower (physics)ContradictionSocial justiceState (computer science)SociologySocial workWork (physics)Political scienceEconomic JusticePolitical economyGender studiesEconomic growthLawPoliticsEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significant differences in privilege, material resources, and decision-making power exist between Inuit and Qallunaat (or non-Inuit) in Canada’s Nunavut Territory. Holding serious implications, the disproportionate advantages afforded Qallunaat require an examination of the relationship between social work and the State (as employer). The role of credentialism and professionalism in the maintenance of neocolonial relations reveals a professional paradox and a barrier to pursing the objective of social justice within the profession. The transition experienced by Inuit—from a predominantly hunting culture to the logic of industrial capitalism—necessitates an examination of the role Qallunaat social workers have played and continue to practice within this transition and in the institutional structures that protect their interests.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0210.019
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Progressive Human ServicesSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207