Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Summary: Human service organizations are often viewed by clients as bureaucratic, formal, oppressive and insensitive environments. Through structured interviews with 42 service providers and 65 street youth in Toronto, Montreal and Guatemala, and participant and non-participant observations in all three locations, this analysis explores tenets of antioppressive organizational structures within the youth shelter construct. • Findings: Anti-oppressive organizations allow for the emergence of meaningful and vibrant community settings by embracing grass-root social development, active participation, a structural analysis of the problem, consciousness raising and social action. These findings can be interpreted as lessons from the field – noting what seems to work best for hard-core and marginalized street youth populations. The current academic discourse concerning notions of anti-oppression has tended to focus upon pedagogy and/or practice; this analysis moves the discussion to a new realm involving organizational behavior. Anti-oppressive organizational structures attempt to build safe and respectful environments for marginalized populations. • Applications: Such findings can hopefully impact the manner by which social work administrators and practitioners understand service delivery within their particular organizational setting and more specifically, how they conduct meaningful social work within their day-to-day practices.
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 | 0.020 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.008 |
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".