Participatory dissent : a case study of political participation in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Literature on political participation suggests that low-income people are not as politically active as other sectors of the population. However, observations of communities like Vancouver's Downtown Eastside seem to contradict this assertion. The current study is a two-part descriptive investigation of the political behavior of low-income people in the Downtown Eastside which endeavours to gain insight into the low participation rates among low-income people documented in the literature. Part 1 employs survey methodology (n=161) and is a quantitative investigation of the relationship between sociopolitical control and the political participation of low-income people. Part II is a qualitative investigation of political behavior employing two focus groups (10 participants in total). The results of this study suggest that the low political participation rates of low-income people documented, in the literature, may to a large extent be due to the way in which political participation is defined in liberal democratic discourse. Low-income people, according to the results, do participate politically, but often in ways that are not typically recognized in liberal democratic discourse as participation. Moreover, the ways in which many low-income people participate appears to be a consequence of their experience of conventional political processes as ineffective or counterproductive. Low-rates of participation, therefore, could more accurately be viewed as high rates of abstention. The implication of these findings for social workers and others interested in promoting political participation is that low rates of political participation among lowincome people can more accurately be attributed to the inadequacy of conventional political processes than to the apathy that low-income people are presumed to exhibit. Further research will be needed before these findings can be confidently generalized and applied to other communities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".