EXAMINING SOCIAL WORK AS A CANADIAN SETTLER COLONIAL PROJECT 1 CAOS: The Journal of Critical Anti-Oppressive Social Inquiry 2014, Volume 1 Examining Social Work as a Canadian Settler Colonial Project: Colonial Continuities of Circles of Reform, Civilizat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims to challenge dominant narratives found within both mainstream and anti-oppressive scholarship about the historical origins of social work by exploring the crucial role of race and racialization in the development and maintenance of the social work profession. Mapping out the shifting ways in which the social work profession actively participated in the construction of colour lines to enforce and reinforce the dominant imagery of the valorized Canadian subject reveals simultaneous social processes we call circles of reform, civilization, and in/visibility. Through a critical race feminist theoretical framework, we explore the complex ways in which these circles allowed leading social workers to promote the social work profession as an important colonial mechanism for the consolidation of Canada as a white settler society. We conclude by critically reflecting upon the possible colonial continuities of these circles and the implications for current anti-oppressive social work practice. Key words: history of social work; charity and settlement house movements; anti-oppressive practice (AOP); race and racialization
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.060 | 0.067 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".