Expose/Oppose/Propose: The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Challenge of Alternative Knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This case study explores some of the strategies, challenges, and paradoxes of producing and mobilizing alternative knowledge in the prosecution of a “war of position” against neoliberal hegemony. Since its founding in 1980, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) has become the key labour-supported “think tank” of the left in Canada, contributing to the process of social democratization by acting as a collective organic intellectual for a wide range of oppositional groups and networks that, we suggest, make up a social democratic community of practice. The ccpa has developed a number of strategies aimed at democratizing knowledge production, perhaps unique in the context of Canadian policy groups. Nonetheless, it faces a number of challenges in following through with these strategies and potential paradoxes in simultaneously engaging both the mainstream (general public and policymakers) and the various counterpublics that make up its community of practice. Cette etude de cas examine certains des defis, des strategies et des paradoxes de la production et de la mobilisation de connaissances alternatives dans la poursuite d’une « lutte de position » contre l’hegemonie neoliberale. Depuis sa fondation en 1980, le Centre canadien de politiques alternatives (CCPA) est devenu le principal « laboratoire d’idees » de la gauche soutenu par le mouvement ouvrier au Canada, contribuant au processus de democratisation sociale, en agissant comme collectif intellectuel organique au service d’un large eventail des groupes et de reseaux d’opposition qui, comme nous le soutenons, forment une communaute de pratique socio-democrate. Le ccpa a elabore un certain nombre de strategies visant a democratiser la production du savoir; ces strategies sont peut-etre uniques dans le contexte des groupes de reflexion canadiens. Neanmoins, il est confronte a un certain nombre de defis en cherchant a donner suite a ces strategies et a des paradoxes potentiels en mobilisant simultanement le courant dominant (grand public et decideurs) et les divers contre-publics qui composent sa communaute de pratique.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.059 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".