For a Carnal Social Work: A Review of the Body in Social Work Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Social work practice is charged with concerns related to the body; health, age, gender, sexuality, race, abuse and violence, to name a few. Despite this, the body itself is strangely invisible in social work literature, its experiences often indirectly addressed. The present scoping review seeks to explore how the body is situated and conceptualised within the peer-reviewed social work literature between 2012 and 2022. The wide scope of this review captures a range of articles (n = 148) in many different journals (n = 56), with few tackling the same questions. Moreover, the stories of many bodies are not yet represented in social work literature. Seven broad relational categories were identified: relationship to oneself; interpersonal concerns in health; systemic and structural concerns in health; therapeutic relationships; the body in intervention; embodied structures; and the body in social work education. The results point to the need for a framework through which to see and interpret the body, promoting a more central position in research and practice. Wacquant’s carnal sociology (2015) is proposed as an appropriate scaffold for bringing the body into view within social work practice and research.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".