Occupation, Exclusion and the “Homeless Problem” during Occupy Montreal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of the Occupy movement in the fall of 2011, the Indignés in Montreal occupied a public square and set up an autonomous encampment to protest against socio-economic inequality. However, cohabitation problems soon arose in the camp and tensions between so-called homeless occupiers and Indignés occupiers developed, leading to the exclusion of the homeless people. This paper addresses this tension and inscribes the concept of occupation in a larger historical context. It teases out the legal histories of occupation-as-exclusive-appropriation to cast another light on occupation-as-protest. Como parte del movimiento “Ocupa” del otoño de 2011, los indignados de Montreal ocuparon una plaza pública, y levantaron un campamento autónomo para protestar por la desigualdad socio-económica. Sin embargo, en el campamento pronto se dieron problemas de cohabitación, y se produjeron tensiones entre los llamados ocupantes sin-techo y los ocupantes indignados, que llevaron a la exclusión de los primeros. Este artículo refleja esta tensión, y sitúa el concepto de ocupación en un contexto histórico mayor. Clarifica la historia legal de “ocupación como apropiación exclusiva” para dar una luz diferente a la “ocupación como protesta”. DOWNLOAD THIS PAPER FROM SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2569088
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".