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 This paper explores possibilities for extending the geographical imagination in academic studies of social work. It notes how current “geographical” research is extensive and diverse—including interests in social and natural environments, practice settings, and global issues—but argues for a change whereby it is more explicitly informed by, and cast as, human geography. Part of this change would involve a transition in basic enterprise, whereby researching social work geographically shifts from being a one‐way effort on the part of academic social workers, to being a two‐way project also involving geographers. Another part would be an important theoretical transition whereby a broadly posthumanist geographical imagination is developed. Moving beyond humanistic privileging of a sovereign subject, this might emphasise distributed agency and a range of more‐than‐human actors, processes, and forces. Specifically, with this theoretical transition in mind, adopting a recently developed posthumanist theoretical typology, attention is paid to how research might be framed around three spatial processes always at play in the emergence and expression of social work. For each of these processes, resonance is acknowledged in existing social work literature, and final consideration is given to quite specific questions that could be asked and expertise that could be tapped.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it