Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents an overview of traditional sociological approaches to the role of social work in society and offers an alternative perspective that draws upon anthropological concepts of culture and specifically the conceptualization of American culture as a form of dialogue between dominant and non-dominant groups in American society. Traditional approaches to the sociology of social work have focused on the concept of social workers as intermediaries. Intermediaries convey messages between groups and seek to resolve conflicts and reach agreements. Incorporating anthropological concepts of cultural dialogue, transmission, and reproduction enables a more in depth analysis and understanding of how this intermediary function plays out. It offers the ability to analyze the content of the messages and to create a better understanding of the tension between social change and social control that are part of social work practice. The intermediary approach to social work’s relations with society results in viewing social work as contradictory and somewhat ambiguous in its relationship to society. This ambiguity, in both theoretical and practical terms, has been difficult for the profession to resolve. By incorporating the concepts of cultural dialogue, transmission, and reproduction, it is argued that the role of social workers in society can be more clearly viewed as that of cultural agents engaged in the processes of dialogue, transmission, and reproduction. From this anthropological perspective, it may be possible to resolve the ambiguity between social work as a form of social control and social work as social change.
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 | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.117 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| 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".