Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the contemporary treatment of difference as "diversity" and explores its articulation through planning. The utility of this approach to difference is set in the urban context to illuminate the role of diversity as a strategic asset in the local consolidation of global economic processes. The qualitative research reported here is a study of the City of Toronto's recently developed diversity initiative as expressed in the recommendations of the Task Force on Community Access and Equity. An evaluation of the efficacy of the City's Action Plan is provided with special focus on the main feature of the Plan, the city wide Community Advisory Committees. Their general role in facilitating inclusion and their specific impact on the planning function is considered. Assessment of the Plan finds it consistent with the dominant treatment of difference as "diversity" reflective of the competitive, corporatized city in which it has been developed, offering minimal opportunity to open political space for marginalized groups. The advisory committee approach to community participation can not only be seen as having limited impact, but also as containing and/or fracturing resistance. However, the contribution of such state-sponsored planning for inclusion is clear when it is set against the broader constellation of action in the social justice movement. The Plan's potential lies in the possibility of iterative developments pressed by forces inside as well as outside of the bureaucracy. The conclusions suggest that such initiatives are one aspect of multifaceted, cross-sectoral progress towards radical democracy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".