Bibliographic record
Abstract
As we continue to contend with complex social problems, social work practice has witnessed the need to continue to grow in seemingly unfamiliar territory. Indeed, we have seen the rise in scholarship bridging between professional disciplines such as social work and the creative arts. As we begin to understand in more depth the links and potential cross-pollination between these seemingly divergent fields, it is important to begin to crystallize our approaches in ways that help guide our community practice. The article begins by summarizing the purpose of using the arts in professional practice and proceeds to proposing a typology to conceptualize arts-inspired approaches to practice. Specifically, I propose understanding the role of art as a potential catalyst, connector, and communicator. I also propose a methodology to guide interventions by examining the modes, means, and mediums that can take our theoretical understandings of the role of art to practical application. The paper ends with an invocation to heed our anxieties about taking creative risks in our practice, not by shunning them, but by welcoming them as a way to continually grow and evolve as practitioners.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".