Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, there has been a failure to address queer individuals and communities, queer-based theories, and queer issues in social work education and the social work profession.The co-editors of this volume, Susan Hillock and Nick Mulé (both social work professors who are queer-identified), decided to collaboratively organize the book in the hope that it will be a catalyst to begin the dialogue, scholarship, and research aimed at addressing these gaps in social work education.Where did our collaboration begin?We met in 2012 at the Canadian Association for Social Work Education (CASWE) annual National Conference at the Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences in Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario.Nick, a gay white man and chair of the CASWE Queer Caucus, was sitting patiently, waiting for interested social work educators to join him for the caucus meeting.Susan, a bisexual white woman, wandered in, laughed out loud, and expressed her (ironic) surprise that there looked to be only two queer people at the conference.After we waited awhile, another woman entered the room.She quickly clarified that she was straight but wanted to be a queer ally.A gay male social work graduate student eventually joined us.After discussing caucus business, Susan mentioned her frustration and disappointment that at her school of social work, and at the national CASWE conference, queer people and queer issues seemed to be invisible and absent from the discourse.Nick agreed, recounting his yearly efforts to motivate people to become involved in the queer caucus.We then wondered what happens to queer social work students, colleagues, and service users who must cope with this type of silence and vacuum every day.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.491 | 0.275 |
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".