Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social work as a profession has undergone significant change in recent decades, modulated by the various social, political, and organizational transformations of the society in which it evolves. Today, there is increasingly diversified research encompassing a number of coexisting visions of social work. These multiple visions come hand in hand with values, principles, as well as ideologies, some of which are dominant, and others that are marginal. Indigenous Peoples are among the most marginalized groups in society and so are Indigenous worldviews within the profession. Currently, there seems to be a willingness to recognize the plurality of knowledge in the area of social work. In line with this objective, the purpose of this article is to present the Indigenous research paradigm. This is a theoretical contemplation centered around the historical context that led to the paradigm’s creation, a description of what it consists of, as well as a presentation of a few examples of its use by social work researchers. Finally, the paper brings up certain persistent issues related to the recognition of the Indigenous paradigm within the profession.
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 | 0.061 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.123 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".