MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129486212 · doi:10.22230/cjnser.2010v1n1a24

Voices from the Margins: Policy Advocacy and Marginalized Communities

2010· article· en· W2129486212 on OpenAlex
Gloria DeSantis

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of nonprofit and social economy research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Work Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersSaskatchewan Health Research FoundationUniversity of Regina
KeywordsPolitical scienceSociologySocial justiceTypologySocial workHumanitiesCriminologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This article aims to explore policy advocacy processes facilitated by social service nonprofit organizations (NPOs) using a social justice lens. Qualitative interview results from 39 NPOs from 18 communities provide a deeper understanding of advocacy, revealing that NPOs perceive that policy advocacy is not a discrete phenomenon, that advocacy activity differs in visibility and scale, and that advocacy strategies are clearly informed by NPOs' front-line service delivery work. A typology of policy advocacy showing different advocacy types and their fluid nature is presented. The results also show that marginalized people's involvement varies depending on a diversity of influential conditions. Conclusions and implications focus on social inclusion/exclusion, the varied and fluid nature of policy advocacy, challenges for practitioners, and the complex nature of "advocacy chill." RÉSUMÉ Les organismes sans but lucratif (OSBL) de services sociaux ont pour mission de préserver la santé des communautés au moyen de défense de politiques sociales. Toutefois, peu d'études concrètes au Canada portent sur la nature des processus en cause, en particulier lorsqu'il s'agit de politiques mises en œuvre au sein de collectivités marginalisées. Cet article a pour but d'explorer sous l'angle de la justice sociale la nature des processus défense des politiques tels qu'ils sont pratiqués par les OSBL de services sociaux. Un entretien qualitatif avec 39 OSBL issues de 18 collectivités permet une meilleure compréhension des processus. Les OSBL ne conçoivent pas défense des politiques comme un phénomène discret; les activités qui y sont reliées varient en visibilité et en étendue, et les stratégies employées sont clairement influencées par les services de première ligne qu'offrent les OSBL. Nous proposons une typologie des processus défense des politiques exposant les différents types d'approches et leur nature changeante. Les résultats indiquent que l'engagement des personnes marginalisées varie en fonction d'un certain nombre de facteurs. Les conclusions et les implications de l'étude se concentrent sur l'exclusion/l'inclusion sociale, la nature variée et changeante du processus défense de politiques, les défis auxquels font face les praticiens et la nature complexe de la réticence envers l'élaboration de politiques communément appelée « advocacy chill ».

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.679
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.309 · 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