The just city for whom? Re-conceiving active citizenship for lone mothers in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article we argue that the ‘just city’ is one that enables individuals to exercise their citizenship, including making choices to participate (or not) in communal existence. However, inequities in resource distribution encountered by lone mothers on income assistance threaten not only individual sustenance and survival, but also the foundational fabric of our society. The implication that an active citizen is one who exercises their rights and responsibilities in a balanced way is problematic, and has the potential to add blame to poverty, justifying exclusion rather than inclusion. Using qualitative data from a longitudinal study of lone mothers in extreme poverty in Vancouver, British Columbia we illustrate how macro-processes within cities (i.e., delivery of affordable housing, food security, childcare, transportation) impinge upon the micro-processes of these women's lives (i.e., impacts on health, economic security, social mobility). Focusing on citizenship as a set of constrained choices challenges the policies and practices of social planning to consider how the scope of citizenship can be expanded by shaping key urban opportunities. Grounding the vision of a just city in the potential for personal agency suggests that policymakers and planners have a key role in shaping citizenship for the most marginalized and oppressed through a combination of providing supports and enabling opportunities in the urban environment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".