Justice and Ethics from the Horizons of Totality and Infinity: Challenging the Violence of Obliteration in the Proposed Entry to Practice Exams in Ontario and Beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, I draw on the contributions of Amy Rossiter to engage the deeply tragic project and consequences of the proposed implementation of entry to social work practice examinations in the province of Ontario, Canada and beyond. Rossiterian attentions to complicities with historical forms of erasure, erosion and violence, projects of innocence making, and methodologies that obliterate attentions to colonialities offer ongoing insights for how just analyses in social work can and must be defended. Specifically, by means of unwavering opposition to racist, ableist, neoliberal/colonial examination technologies in social work. From a respect for Rossiter’s attentions to the ethics of the encounter, the Gadamerian concept of horizons of interpretation, unsettling social work, the practice of questioning the violence of totalizing methods, and the possibilities that arise from struggle, resistance and solidarity are explored for their infinite potentials for transformation. These analyses contribute from the place of proposed oblivion, to tap into the that which allows for escape and freedom, and a sense of justice beyond the logics of erosive, violent knowledge technologies operating in and through the proposed social work entry-to-practice examinations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".