Clients and case managers as neoliberal subjects? Shaping session tasks and everyday interactions with severely mentally ill (SMI) clients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores how multiple contexts – professional knowledge (e.g. case management), institutional practices (e.g. New Public Management), and mental health policies and legislations (e.g. Mental Health Act) – under neoliberal governance (re)produce ways social workers interact with their clients in moment-to-moment interactions. It is part of a larger process and outcome research project on cross-cultural social work practice in outpatient community mental health settings in an urban Canadian city. Using transcripts of audio-taped sessions between social workers and clients with severe mental illness, and inspired by critical theories of language, knowledge and power, we illustrate how neoliberal themes (re)position clients and social workers in negotiating session tasks in everyday interactions, and how these interactions shape the clients and social workers as desirable and undesirable neoliberal subjects. These detailed studies in micro-interactions can be used as practice examples in considering how social workers can be critically reflective of our own micro practice and resist the governing neoliberal ideology in the macro level.
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 | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".