MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W221584915 · doi:10.60082/0829-3929.1212

Community Campaigns for the Right to Housing: Lessons from the R2H Coalition of Ontario

2015· article· en· W221584915 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Yutaka Dirks

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Law and Social Policy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterVariety (cybernetics)Community organizingPublic administrationPolitical scienceWork (physics)Public relationsCommunity organizationAffordable housingPublic housingSociologyEconomic growthLawEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the history of the Right to Housing (R2H) Coalition of Ontario and the role of the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario (ACTO) within the Coalition. The R2H Coalition provided support to the applicants in the Right to Housing Charter Challenge. The Coalition also engaged in a variety of educational and community organizing activities in support of the right to housing and the creation of a federally funded affordable housing strategy. This paper, based on the author’s personal experiences within the R2H Coalition, examines how the adoption of community organizing principles could strengthen campaigns for systemic social change, including community organizing work undertaken by community legal clinics.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.228
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Law and Social PolicySame topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207