The Advocate Self of(f) Beaten Paths: Travelling Colonial Roads in Neoliberal Times
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social work often conceptualizes advocacy as synonymous with social justice and critical praxis (Smith, 2011), which seemingly affirms the heart of the social work profession. Though many claim an advocacy role or agree that advocacy is essential to social works cause, little is known about how the advocate self is constructed, understood, and practiced. 6 self-defined, Ontario-based child and youth advocates were interviewed in this study to explore how they engage in their own self-making processes; specifically advocates for children and youth who are involved in the child welfare system. \nThis research is informed by post-structural, anti-colonial, anti-racist, and other critical theories and worldviews. It deploys a narrative approach and an analytic framework of Foucauldian discourse analysis to explore how child and youth advocates are shaped by, and in turn, shape dominant relations of power that work against, or in solidarity with children and young people towards social justice. \nFindings reveal that the roads travelled by child and youth advocates in their self-making processes are complex and ever-changing. The narratives of child and youth advocates reveal that they are both co-producers and disrupters of dominant discourses and power-knowledge systems. Additionally, it is argued that the advocate self is not a bounded self, but that it is “discursively mediated and politically situated” (Macias, 2012 p. 10). Finally, the research concludes with an argument for the necessity to historicize social justice imperatives in order to gain insight to the current tensions experienced by social justice advocates and further, opportunities for resistance.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".