Bibliographic record
Abstract
Linked to people’s social identities, privilege is largely understood as an unearned asset, which translates to advantages for those to whom it is ascribed. Drawing on a phenomenological research conducted with 20 direct practice social workers in Southwestern Ontario, Canada, this paper suggests an alternative theoretical framework of social constructionism for considering the evolving and shifting dimensions of privilege and its implication for social work practice. By proposing privilege as a moving target, study participants acknowledged the different but fluid categories of social identities and the different contexts of individuals in society. Participants also recognized the advantages that are earned by personal and professional characteristics, which can be experienced or deployed in multiple ways. They also identified internal characteristics such as a sense of agency or autonomy, which is the recognition of the individual as a self-propelling agent with choices even amidst adverse situations. Privilege as a moving target accepts the dynamic physical, ecological, political and sociocultural environments under which social workers operate. Understanding that privilege is a moving target is relevant to professional social work practice because privilege goes to the core of personal and professional identities of social workers as they interact with clients and in society.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".