MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948621935 · doi:10.22329/csw.v9i1.5758

Demarcating Gender and Sexual Diversity on the Structural Landscape of Social Work

2019· article· en· W2948621935 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Social Work · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Work Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGender studiesSociologyOppressionIntersectionalityNormativeInclusion (mineral)EmancipationSocial changeSocial psychologyPolitical sciencePoliticsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The importance of demarcating gender and sexually diverse populations in structural social work theory is discussed from a differently centred cultural group perspective highlighting distinct qualities that fall outside normative gender identities and heterosexuality. Historical oppression experienced by these populations has likened their inclusion in structural social work theory yet the continued marginalization of these populations and associated implications are not to be lost sight of. A means of bringing currency to structural social work theory with regard to these populations is to embrace liberationist goals taking intersectionality into consideration. Such goals are in alliance with the social work values of acceptance, self-determination and respect working towards social justice and emancipation, and go far beyond the rights-claims equality agenda that sustains a slightly varied hegemony, giving the social location of gender and sexually diverse groups relevancy and viability on the structural landscape of social work.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.304 · 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