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.
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 | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.109 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".