MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885045609 · doi:10.1080/10428232.2018.1502998

Innocent Expertise: Subjectivity and Opportunities for Subversion within Community Practice

2018· article· en· W2885045609 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 · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Work Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubjectivitySubversionSociologySubject (documents)White (mutation)Construct (python library)AestheticsGender studiesPublic relationsEpistemologyPolitical scienceLawPoliticsComputer scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article shines light on the tension-filled subjectivity of community practice, reflecting on the experiences of two community workers and our stories of how our whiteness functions in community practice—particularly when white workers engage with racialized community members. Through these stories, we seek to demonstrate how the white worker is framed as what we call an “innocent expert subject”; this subject is one that is both constituted through the authority of the systems we work within, and one which we construct through our own actions. Potential dangers of this subjectivity are then explored, as are opportunities for subversion. As we work toward negating the potential harms caused by this fraught subjectivity, it is our hope that possibilities for different kinds of community work, and different kinds of white community workers, can be realized.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.346
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.309 · 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