MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2257308707 · doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcv104

The Pervasive Presence of the Discourse of White Civility in Early Canadian Social Work in Immigration Services (1900–30)

2015· article· en· W2257308707 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Marjorie Johnstone

Bibliographic record

VenueThe British Journal of Social Work · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Work Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsWomen's and Gender Studies et Recherches FéministesYork University
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsSociologySocial orderCivilityGender studiesPoliticsCapitalismSocialismNationalismWhite (mutation)EmpirePolitical economyPolitical scienceLawCommunism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first half of the twentieth century was formative for the Canadian social work profession. White settler Canada was at an intersection between the social forces of capitalism, socialism, feminism, nationalism, imperialism and social reform ( Cohen, 1996; Gaudet, 2001). A discourse of British imperial ideas was in wide circulation, although there was contestation and diverging ideas. Through the osmotic transmission process of cultural imperialism, many of these imperial ideas became part of the fabric of social work. Using a comparative historical archival approach, I examine two politically different social work organisations—the Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire and Toronto University Settlement—in order to show that this discourse crossed the political spectrum. I consider the influence of imperial discourses on the formation of Canadian social work and the legacy this has left us with.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0490.038
Scholarly communication0.0130.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe British Journal of Social WorkSame topicSocial Work Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207