Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radical social work is often associated with an understanding of society based on Marxist ideas, above all, the idea that we live in a society in which the central division (though clearly not the only division) is class. While that tradition has been important in shaping radical social work theory and practice both in the 1970s and currently, it has not been the only source of critical thinking within social work. Feminist and anti-racist approaches, for example, have also been influential, as have approaches based on identity politics more generally (essentially, the idea that only those experiencing a particular form of oppression can either define it or fight against it). While postmodern and post-structuralist approaches have had less influence in social work than in other academic disciplines, in Australia, Canada and, especially, the US, they have shaped much of the critical social work literature. In previous publications, we have sought to provide an assessment of different strands of critical social work thought including postmodernism, post-structuralism and identity politics, as well as exploring the roots of oppression and alienation. Rather than repeating the arguments presented there, we would refer readers to these earlier writings (Ferguson and Lavalette, 1999; Ferguson et al, 2002; Ferguson, 2008; Lavalette, 2011). Rather, our intention here is to look at what are often new takes on older questions. As an example, two prominent social work academics, Mel Gray and Stephen Webb, have suggested that current developments in political theory and political philosophy, notably, the work of Nancy Fraser, Axel Honneth and Alain Badiou, ‘have the potential to galvanize a new politics of social work by innovatively reworking agendas on social justice and solidarity, of political possibility, and transformative ideas relating to universal emancipation and freedom’ (Gray and Webb, 2013: 4).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".