Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book began on a bus.Christina was seated near the front, waiting to be shuttled between venues at the 2010 Africa Research Conference in Applied Drama and Theatre.Hazel stepped on board, settled herself, and we began to talk: about Drama for Life (DFL), a post-graduate program in applied drama and theatre at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg (Hazel chaired Drama for Life's research committee at the time); and about social work education and practice (Christina teaches in the School of Social Work at McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada).We had a lively conversation about points of contact and possibility between our two disciplines and their justice projects.Later, talking with Munyaradzi Chatikoba (DFL's program manager) and Warren Nebe (director of DFL), Christina learned more about joint teaching initiatives between DFL and the Discipline of Social Work at Witwatersrand.She also met Edwell Kaseke, head of the Discipline of Social Work, and came to know something of the Discipline's social development orientation and its synergy with DFL's focus on critical pedagogy and practice for social change.We all kept in touch over the next year.A call for workshop grant applications from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) prompted a more focused set of conversations.In a flurry of emails and Skype exchanges, we hatched a plan for the workshop Social Work Beyond Borders, Social Work Artfully.Held in Johannesburg, South Africa, at the University of the Witwatersrand, and funded by SSHRC, the workshop drew together scholars, students, and practitioners of social work and of the arts from McMaster and Witwatersrand.Over three very engaging days, we mapped productive intersections between social (justice) work and the arts; engaged specific examples of arts-informed social work and social change initiatives; and critically interrogated the claims and potential for artful practice to respond to contemporary challenges.We ended our time together with a conversation about our interest in sharing our experiences and reflections at the intersection of social (justice) work and the arts, in a book.This is that book.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.333 | 0.131 |
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".