Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this review was to examine whether heteronormativity is reproduced or problematized within Norwegian social work journals. It is based on a study that explored how sexuality is addressed in social work journal articles and extends past reviews by also analysing heterosexuality. The data comprised of 572 articles published in the major Norwegian social work journals between 2002 and 2014. A keyword search and a thematic analysis was used to first determine how many articles addressed sexuality and second to develop a closer analysis of how sexuality was addressed in the identified articles. Queer theory guided the analysis. Findings revealed that heteronormativity was problematized in five of the six (1%) articles that addressed sexuality, indicating that heteronormativity is reproduced in Norwegian social work journals and that those in position in authority in the field of social work routinely deploy heterosexuality as a taken-for-granted resource. If power asymmetries are to be destabilized, strategies that counteract the power basis of the hegemonic norm are necessary, such as addressing the binary opposition of heterosexuality vs. non-heterosexuality, and naming heterosexuality.
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 | 0.024 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".