SHIFTING GROUND, SOLID FOUNDATIONS: IMAGINING A NEW PARADIGM FOR CANADIAN CIVIL SOCIETY ENGAGEMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Members of civil society are increasingly decrying what they identify as an insidious trend whereby the government is targeting organizations whose mandates run contrary to the federal government’s political and economic agendas and creating a chill around public policy and advocacy work. The media as well as civil society organizations [CSOs] themselves have documented government attempts to undermine and stifle the voices of dissenting organizations, ranging from rhetorical attacks to the withdrawal of funding for ambiguous reasons. The climate of resentment and suspicion between civil society actors and the government is detrimental for safeguarding the tradition of accountability and transparency in Canada’s democratic institutions. Amidst this turbulent environment, this paper examines the often-made claim by CSO leaders in Canada that public funding is a necessary requirement for a strong civil society, with the aim of challenging and mobilizing the civil society community to not only survive but to reinvigorate its engagement to further social justice in this changing social and economic landscape. We argue that discussions of the state of civil society in Canada focus disproportionately on the question of funding and relationship-building with the government and expose the unforeseen consequences of this trade-off for CSOs, their members, and constituent communities. We close by introducing the potential of a new paradigm of “principled engagement” that would allow Canadian CSOs to thrive as sustainable, adaptable social justice advocates in coming years.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".