Une analyse de la règlementation des personnes itinérantes selon une perspective pothienne de la discrimination (A Pothienne Analysis of the Obstructive Solicitation Act)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.Dans cet article, nous nous appuierons sur les analyses critiques de Dianne Pothier concernant la discrimination et la dignite humaine pour etablir ce que nous nommons la « perspective pothienne ». Notre objectif est de demontrer l’applicabilite de la perspective pothienne aux enjeux relatifs a la dignite des personnes itinerantes. Une analyse pothienne de l’adoption et des effets d’un reglement municipal—le Reglement sur la sollicitation obstructive de Winnipeg—nous permet de sonder la complexite des structures dans lesquelles les instances formelles creent ou renforcent des obstacles a l’epanouissement des personnes itinerantes. Entre autres, l’analyse pothienne complexifie la comprehension des dynamiques et des differentiations marginalisant les personnes itinerantes. Neanmoins, Pothier mise aussi sur la maniere dont les personnes concoivent divers moyens creatifs de composer avec leur realite quotidienne en developpant des tactiques pour maintenir leur dignite humaine malgre des experiences de discrimination. Son analyse apporte aux discussions sur le phenomene de l’itinerance a Winnipeg un eclairage original qui peut favoriser l’emergence de strategies novatrices pour les groupes qui luttent contre la pauvrete.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".