MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948975654 · doi:10.22329/csw.v9i1.5756

Social Work and the anti-oppressive stance

2019· article· en· W2948975654 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Social Work · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Work Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsFirst Nations University of CanadaUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOppressionRhetorical questionSociologyRacismColonialismGender studiesNature versus nurtureWork (physics)Task (project management)Political sciencePoliticsLawLinguisticsAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This theoretical article addresses a concern about the anti-oppressive stance adopted by Canadian Schools of Social Work and asks the rhetorical questions to nurture the discourse: is our anti-oppressive stance, so widely adopted across the country, meaningful or is it, like the Emperor’s new clothes, illusory? Oppression, racism, and aboriginal relations in Canada are examined against a backdrop of theoretical links to imperialism and colonialism to delineate the intricacies of the problem. The article begins with an illustrative story and concludes by asking pointed questions about the willingness of social work schools, student, educators, and practitioners to turn to the task of translating the theoretical of anti-oppression in the practical.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.881
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.355 · 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