Interpersonal or Institutional: Understanding Service User Oppression in Social Service Organizations Through Staff Interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Service user experiences of oppression by human service organizations (HSOs) has long been understood through the lens of service providers, with service users largely excluded from research in this area. This qualitative study, the second phase of a mixed methods study, presents the findings of 9 focus groups (n=66) with service users from 13 different HSOs representing seven service areas (eg. Homelessness, addictions, youth) on the topic of service user experiences of oppression by HSOs. Using a semi-structured interview guide, participants were asked to share both positive and negative experiences with HSOs and recommendations to address oppression. The discussion identified important elements of the relationship between service providers and service users such as consistency, responsiveness, motivation, and competency that impact service user oppression. The findings from this qualitative phase help to develop a conceptual model of how oppression is rooted in organizations through service provider and service user interpersonal relationships.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".