The ideological dilemma of subordination of self versus self-care: Identity construction of the ‘ethical social worker’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Discourse analysis, while under-utilized in social work, is useful for understanding the social construction of identity as negotiated in talk with others. The article has twin aims. First, the author argues that identity is a fragmented co-construction, changing moment-to-moment in context with others. This argument is supported by analyzing an extract from a research study on ethics in social work practice, in which a practitioner struggled with an ideological dilemma. How ‘ideological dilemmas’ differ from the more commonly used notion of ‘ethical dilemmas’ in social work is addressed. The second goal is to heighten awareness of the utility of both discourse analysis and ‘ideological dilemmas’ for use as theoretical tools for social work. The particular ideological dilemma the worker had to negotiate to be seen as an ‘ethical practitioner’ was that of the subordination of the self versus self-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 | 0.053 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.118 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".