Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anti-oppression discourse has emerged within critical social work in an effort to address issues of diversity, difference, and inclusion. Drawing upon Audre Lorde’s (1984) famous words “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house” this paper will argue that modernist aspects of anti-oppressive discourse may unwittingly deploy the masters’ or dominant conceptual tools. A critical reflexive lens identifies unintended, modernist conceptual practices of power which may reify dominant discourse. Specifically I focus on three modernist practices of power which may limit anti-oppression discourse: 1) the essentialism of the subject, 2) subjectivism or writing out the social, and 3) the reproduction of dominant social discourse. Through exploring these three related domains, I argue for a blending of modernist and postmodernist assumptions which holds onto the strengths of both modernism and postmodernism while abandoning their limitations. This blended approach will facilitate a critically reflexive anti-oppressive practice. KEYWORDS: Anti-oppression, postmodernism, social work practice, reflexivity
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 | 0.025 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.097 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| 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 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".