The Proliferation of Charitable Meal Programs in Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En l’absence de politiques fédérales ou provinciales efficaces pour régler le problème de l’itinérance, des groupes communautaires ont mis sur pied de nombreux programmes visant à aider les gens à satisfaire leurs besoins de subsistance. Dans cet article, nous rendons compte d’une étude que nous avons menée en 2004 sur les diverses initiatives mises sur pied à Toronto en matière d’aide alimentaire. Nous avons étudié 490 programmes, qui permettent de servir 128 000 repas et collations par semaine à des gens (sans-abri ou ayant un domicile). Plusieurs organismes qui gèrent ces programmes ont de la difficulté à répondre à la demande. Leurs responsables nous ont affirmé que les services qu’ils offrent sont essentiels, puisque, sans eux, des citoyens n’auraient rien à manger ; mais cette aide reste pourtant limitèe et intermittente, et elle souffre de l’absence de coordination. Les besoins qui sont à la base de cette demande montrent done que le système actuel d’aide sociale comporte des failles importantes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".