Special issue editorial: critical temporalities in social work after ‘the end of history’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For this special issue of Critical & Radical Social Work, we take declarations of 'the end of history' as a reminder of the ways in which established ideas and noted events are linked into historical narratives that structure the temporal-generational and spatial-geographic nature of the various imaginations that shape professional social work in different times and places.The phrase 'the end of history' alludes to German philosopher George Wilhelm Hegel, who argued for a linear and teleological model of historical stages inevitably progressing towards greater human freedom via the emergence of the liberal state form.Achieving human freedom, via liberalism, would mean we have reached the end of history.This model of history was adapted by Marx into a theory of historical development that would instead end with the emergence of communism, a theory that underlies some critical and radical traditions in social work.The concept of history's end gained widespread media attention when the US political scientist Francis Fukuyama (1992) boldly proclaimed that the end of the Cold War in 1988 was, in fact, 'the end of history' -liberalism qua capitalism had won out over socialism and communism.Fukuyama (2022) recently doubled down on this claim in addressing the economic success of strong states -Russia and China -not bound by liberal-democratic legal infrastructures and styles of governance, arguing both that these states are too fragile to endure forever and that their existence is, in part, responsible for the growth of anti-liberal populism in the US.US-style liberalism and its relationship with global capitalism remains, for Fukuyama, the only viable way to realise human freedom.
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 | 0.014 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.029 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 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; 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".