MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1909925918 · doi:10.29173/cjs1613

The Perils of Institutionalization in Neoliberal Times: Results of a National Survey of Canadian Sexual Assault and Rape Crisis Centres

2008· article· en· W1909925918 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Melanie A. Beres, Barbara Crow, Lise Gotell

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Sociology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Politics and Representation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstitutionalisationNeoliberalism (international relations)SociologyContext (archaeology)Sexual violenceResistance (ecology)Gender studiesPoliticsSexual assaultPolitical sciencePublic administrationCriminologyPoison controlSuicide preventionPolitical economyLawMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reports on a national survey of Canadian rape crisis and sexual assault centres conducted in 2005. We situate our results in relation to feminist literature on the perils of institutionalization. We argue that institutionalization takes on new forms in the context of neoliberalism and we emphasize the resistance of centres to under-funding and to individualized victims’ services policy frameworks. Despite significant pressures to redefine as social service delivery agencies, Canadian centres continue to engage in social change activism and define themselves as specifically feminist/pro-woman/equality-seeking organizations. Our respondents vary significantly in size and resources, yet nearly all emphasize the significant obstacle of inadequate funding and all continue to rely heavily on the unpaid work of (usually women) volunteers to do more with less.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0100.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations59
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of SociologySame topicGender Politics and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207