The Toronto Origins of Ontario’s 2008 Poverty Reduction Strategy: Mobilizing Multiple Channels of Influence for Progressive Social Policy Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article provides an account of the community strategies that pushed the Ontario provincial government to pursue a poverty reduction strategy and attempted to shape that strategy as it developed. It pays particular attention to the tensions involved in developing a concerted and inclusive community campaign, both in terms of defining a shared programme, and balancing the geography of representation between Toronto organizations with a proximity to policy makers and organizations elsewhere in the province. While both presented challenges, it was ultimately the divisions of vision and strategy between social liberals and social democrats that proved the hardest to contain, especially as the provincial strategy was concretized and favoured the social liberal position. Cet article rend compte des initiatives communautaires qui ont pousse le gouvernement provincial de l'Ontario a adopter une strategie de reduction de la pauvrete et des tentatives qui ont ete faites pour la faconner au fil de son elaboration. Il porte une attention toute particuliere aux tensions liees a la conception d'une campagne communautaire concertee et universelle : il s'agit en effet de definir un programme commun, mais aussi d'atteindre un equilibre en matiere de representation geographique entre les organismes de Toronto, proches des decideurs politiques, et ceux du reste de la province. Outre ces deux defis, ce sont finalement les divergences de vision et de strategie entre les sociaux-liberaux et les sociaux-democrates qui ont ete les plus difficiles a maitriser, en particulier au moment de la concretisation de la strategie provinciale qui a penche en faveur de la position des sociaux-liberaux.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".