Poetically Teaching/Doing the Profession of Social Work as a Joyful UnDisciplined Discipline-Jumper and Genre-Jumper 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
...We expect our students to upgrade their knowledge and skills over their careers, yet do not help them acquire effective self-directed learning skills. There is little integration of knowledge in social work education or coordination of teaching. The curriculum is broken into individual parts - policy, methods, research – with few efforts to integrate them. There is a lack of integration between class and field. There has long been an ‘add-on’ approach in social work education, in which we simply add new content, resulting in an unintegrated and (often) indigestible mix. This fragmentation gets in the way of learning (e.g. seeing the interrelationships among different areas). Obscurantism abounds... Key aims espoused often remain undefined... ...because there are different views about what social justice is, pursuing vague, related outcomes inevitably involves imposing some people’s view of social justice on others. (Gambrill, 1997, p. 320) Social Workers are employed in non-profit organizations, government offices, and in private practice. We engage with individuals, families, groups, communities. Social workers 2 engage with people in every phase of the life cycle; in every community; in every lie and truth told to, and by, humans. We do international work with relief or disaster care organizations. We are the people touching the troubles of the whole world; and all those worlds of troubles touch the insides of us. One of my students concisely summarized some of the problematics of our profession. We’re seen, she said, as: “Child / Baby snatchers. Bleeding hearts. Women/female. Intrusive. Controlling. Uncaring. Unnerving. Bound by rules and regulations. Condescending. Or: we’re not acknowledged at all!”
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 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 teacher head, 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".