MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979088812 · doi:10.7202/1064661ar

NEOLIBERALISM AND SOCIAL WORK REGULATION

2019· article· en· W2979088812 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Barbara Heron

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social work review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Work Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeoliberalism (international relations)SociologyContext (archaeology)Resistance (ecology)Social workWork (physics)Public relationsEpistemologyPolitical scienceEnvironmental ethicsSocial scienceLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The question of how through social work practice, theory and research social workers engage in “epistemic disobedience” in respect to the “epistemicide” of Others’ knowledges is crucial in the current neolielberal context. However, the possibilities of such resistance are becoming increasingly constrained by the encroachment of licensing requirements for social work professionals. This paper considers how the turn to professional regulation in social work via licensing competency standards further entrenches Western ways of knowing, while at the same time working in concert with neoliberalism to transform the social work profession in ways that stand to remove it from the reach of epistemic disobedience. The Canadian Council of Social Work Regulators’ competency standards are taken as the starting point for an analysis, which seeks to articulate the intersecting impacts of neoliberalism in social work practice, and the crucial place of social work regulation within this web of effects. In conclusion, the implications for social work education are raised and the urgency of epistemic resistance is considered.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.738
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social work reviewSame topicSocial Work Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207