Une analyse de la réglementation des personnes itinérantes selon une perspective pothienne de la discrimination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we will rely on the critical analysis of Dianne Pothier regarding discrimination and human dignity in order to establish propositions that we name the “Pothier perspective.” Our aim is to demonstrate the applicability of the Pothier perspective to the issues relating to street-involved people's dignity. We apply her analysis to a particular context – the implementation and the effects of the Obstructive Solicitation Regulation in Winnipeg. We find that Pothier's perspective helps us probe the complex ways in which formal decision-making bodies create and reinforce barriers to improving the life conditions of street-involved people. Among other things, the Pothier analysis deepens our understanding of power dynamics and shifting variations within the context of homelessness. However, Pothier also focuses on the manner in which people conceive of creative ways to develop strategies to maintain their dignity despite discriminatory experiences. Her perspective brings a different discussion about the homelessness in Winnipeg, which may facilitate innovative strategies for anti-poverty groups more broadly.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".