Multi-faceted organising strategies: integrating community and labour struggles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the 1980s, Canadians have witnessed deterioration in working conditions and a slow erosion of social programs. Employers' desires for increased profits have led to a more fragmented and insecure workforce. Government trends of reducing or eliminating social programs have generated a greater need at a community level for social services. Needs are exacerbated among marginalized populations including women and immigrants of colour as these groups generally face greater poverty and an increased risk of exploitive employers. Groups that serve and organize marginalized workers and communities experience increasing difficulty meeting their members' and clients' needs. Community organizations continue to experience funding cuts from governments while attempting to meet an increased demand from clients and members for services. Labour unions encounter greater barriers utilizing traditional organizing techniques in a restructured economy and re-organization of production. Some community-based organizations have attempted to meet these needs by integrating community and labour organizing with service delivery. Two such organizations are compared in this thesis: the Vancouver based, Philippine Women's Centre, which serves Philippine women, many of whom are migrant workers in the Lower Mainland of B C and the Progressive Intercultural Community Services Society (PICS) of Surrey, B C , which gives services primarily to Indo-Canadians in the organization's surrounding community including Indo-Canadian farmworkers. The thesis examines the ways in which each organization has attempted to integrate community and labour organizing and service provision, the opportunities and constraints it has faced, and the strategies it has found effective.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| 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".