JOINING THE CALL TO INCORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY INTO THE CANADIAN SOCIAL WORK PROFESSION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A global concern about how unsustainable use of global natural resources engenders environmental, social, and economic injustices for the world’s most vulnerable population has been well established in the literature. Although the profession of social work has a long-standing tradition of advocating for social and economic justice, issues of environmental sustainability have yet to be fully incorporated into social work education and practice. While the connection between the natural environment and social work education is robustly emerging in Australian and American literature, the Canadian social work literature is also paying attention to issues of environmental sustainability. In response to the 2018 call by the Canadian Association for Social Work Education – Association canadienne pour la formation en travail social (CASWE-ACFTS) (2018) to revitalize efforts towards environmental sustainability in Canadian social work education, this article joins other Canadian social work educators to advocate for the profession to incorporate a novel global paradigm—sustainability—into social work practice. Drawing on relevant literature and other empirical studies, this article aims to increase our understanding of the critical impact of a lack of sustainability on Canada’s poorest, most vulnerable, and oppressed people (such as Indigenous Peoples), who often live in the most degraded environments and have no control over their own natural resources. I argue that incorporating sustainability into Canadian social work education and practice is achievable only if the professional bodies, namely the Canadian Association of Social Workers (CASW) and CASWE-ACFTS, provide institutional support by setting accreditation standards and ethical guidelines to reinforce sustainability in Canadian social work practice.
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 | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.046 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".