The Call to Decolonise: Social Work’s Challenge for Working with Indigenous Peoples
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Using Canada as an example, social work must not only address its historical and current role in the colonisation and assimilation efforts aimed at Indigenous people, but also deconstruct its practices. Social work theory, methodology and practice parameters have been built on Eurocentric definitions and understandings. Indigenous peoples do not identify with these constructs but find themselves assessed and case managed based upon them. This extends colonialism and runs counter to a core principle of the profession, that being social justice. Canada is presently calling social work to participate in a reconciliation effort, although that assumes that there was a mutually beneficial relationship to restore. Some argue against that but there is a strong consensus that social work should carry its share of the burden in colonialism and self-reflect while also reaching out to build a different type of relationship with Indigenous peoples. This article reports on three projects that consider Indigenous knowledge and application to social work. Child protection is seen as a major focal point of change, as Indigenous children are significantly over-represented in the children in care population. Looking at this area of practice will help to illustrate the long roots of the colonial practices but also how current practice remains problematic.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it