Knowing Nothing: Understanding New Critical Social Work Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals embarking on their journey to become professional social workers often state they feel as if they know nothing upon entering their practice. Regardless of the number of years critical social workers have practiced, they are also thought to know “nothing.” By utilizing a philosophical hermeneutic approach I chose to recognize that new critical social work ideas, theories and practices come from something and somewhere (Moules, 2002). This hermeneutic study involved interviewing six newly graduated social workers from with a declared critical orientation. I asked these budding new professionals to describe what happens when they begin working in organizations that may or may not support a critical ideology and how this influences their practice. Hermeneutic interpretations of the participant experiences suggest that this “nothing” is not devoid of meaning or method, but instead involves insinuating themselves and their ideas into their agencies in a delicate curvilinear manner.
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 | 0.032 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.142 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.041 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".