Queering Canadian Social Work Accreditation standards and procedures: a content analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reviews and critically analyzes the Canadian Association for Social Work Education—Association Canadienne Pour La Formation En Travail Social’s (CASWE-ACFTS’) Accreditation Standards and Procedures from a Sexual Orientation Gender Identity and Expression (SOGIESC) lens to examine how such are addressed in relevant documents. The CASWE-ACFTS Queer Caucus undertook a lead role in examining ‘diversity’ in the documents as it serves as an umbrella term for SOGIESC and other intersecting positionalities. This paper iterates an initial response in the CASWE-ACFTS Queer Caucus’ ongoing consultation with the CASWE-ACFTS’s Education Policy Committee’s work on Education Policy and Accreditation Standards 2019 (EPAS2019). The content analysis of the documents reveals that SOGIESC issues are not adequately addressed and this has implications for undergraduate and graduate social work curricula in Canada. The authors provide recommendations that address the integration of SOGIESC in CASWE-ACFTS’s Accreditation Standards and Procedures documents.
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 | 0.074 | 0.135 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".