From the “War on Poverty” to the “War on the Poor”: Knowledge, Power, and Subject Positions in Anti-Poverty Discourses
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anti-poverty discourses are interrogated through a case study of articles on the websites of the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP) and The Toronto Star covering a tenant activism campaign. An autonomous media article by OCAP on direct actions to “stop the war on the poor” is compared with an article in The Toronto Star depicting tenant-activists lobbying government in the “war on poverty.” Subjectivity and power relations are analyzed by deconstructing binaries, including deserving/undeserving poor, pride/shame, and dignity/stigmatization. I find productive interdiscursive relations emerging, whereby the two discourses are mutually implicated in creating possibilities for social transformation. I also argue that critical discourse analysis needs to become a more participatory engaged methodology, taking direction from and providing accountability to its research subjects.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it