Best Practices for Implementing a Living Wage Policy in Canada: Using Community-Campus Partnerships to Further the Community's Goal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study explores one longitudinal case of engaged scholarship, the collaborative Best Practices for Implementing a Living Wage Policy in Canada: Using community-campus partnerships to further the community's goals presents best practices for implementing a living wage policy, based on surveys and interviews of living wage advocates across Canada. This paper is a product of the ongoing partnership between Vibrant Communities Canada and Carleton University which is conducting a seven-year, SSHRC-funded study on how community-campus relationships can use joint resources to create practice and policy changes in the battle against poverty. For eight months, a group of Master of Social Work students researched the status of the working poor and the progress of living wage campaigns in North America, and analyzed data collected through surveys and interviews with individuals engaged in living wage campaigns. Recommendations for best practices to implement a living wage policy are discussed and include (a) developing a core group of individuals, (b) engaging champions to extend the buy-in of companies, (c) establishing a positive framework for the campaign, and (d) dedicating more resources to research and knowledge. This work is intended to facilitate discussion and create real impact on minimum wage regulations and business practices, resulting in increased social inclusion for individuals who identify as living in poverty.
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 | 0.907 | 0.924 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.631 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.580 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".