Interrogating settler social work with indigenous persons in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This article, towards decolonizing social work, reports on a study that examined the record of Canadian social work regarding Indigenous Canadians through the lens of the national professional association's journal. Noting that the broad dataset of over 1,500 journal articles represents legitimized knowledge within the discipline, the study aimed to develop a history of the present to interrogate the discourses relating to such practice. The study involved an analysis of the contents over the life of the journal from 1932 to 2019. Findings The study found that minimal attention was given to Indigenous issues in Canadian social work, only 30 articles touching on Indigenous issues directly. These articles portray contrasting discourses on Indigenous subjectivities and social work responses, reflecting conflicting perspectives in social work. Applications These observations should inform the interrogation of contemporary social work practice in Canada regarding its positionality in relation to Indigenous persons. Further, it should contribute to forging social work's future in recognizing the injustices and challenges accompanying its colonial history and present.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".