Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book draws on our work with colleagues in a variety of radical social work networks across the global social work community.It would be impossible to thank them all individually, but we would like to acknowledge the support, friendship and comradeship of colleagues in the range of radical social work groups across the globe.These include the Social Work Action Network (SWAN) groups in Ireland, Greece, Canada and Britain.Similar groups in other global locations include the Boston Liberation Health Group, the New Approach Group in Hungary, the Progressive Welfare Network, Hong Kong, the Rebel Social Work Group in New Zealand/Aotearoa and the Arbeitskreis Kritische Soziale Arbeit (Critical and Radical Social Work Network) in Germany.We would also like to acknowledge the many inspiring representatives that we have met from the social work associations in Spain, Argentina and Brazil.In particular, we remember fondly the meeting we coordinated at the Global Social Work conference in Sweden to try and establish an international network together; the meeting was well attended and just about to start when the Brazilian colleagues arrived.Their presence was remarkable for two reasons: first, there were lots of them!Second, they all wanted to debate with us on the continuing relevance of Marxism to social work -not something we experience very often!Our experience in social work has also been enhanced by the involvement of a range of service users and service-user organisations and colleagues in relevant campaigning organisations.Among the many organisations that we have worked with, we would like to thank Disabled People Against the Cuts, Recovery in the Bin, Black Triangle, Shaping Our Lives and Stand Up To Racism.In Britain, many social workers are active within both social work and their union.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.012 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".