Collaborative Performances of Resistance in Twenty-First Century Toronto: Occupy Toronto and <i>The Encampment</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay examines connections between protest camps and artist interventions in the Canadian context, focussing on two cases. In October 2011, Occupy Toronto organizers set up a protest camp in St. James Park as part of a global movement in 950 cities to decry the effects of global capitalism. Six months later, another collective set up an artistic occupation consisting of 200 A-frame tents called The Encampment at Fort York National Historic Site. This intervention recast the military fort, which conventionally operates as an open-air living history museum depicting the social and military history of the War of 1812, as a space that showcased the war’s civilian history. The author approaches each as a space of convergence dependent upon the calculated co-ordination of people and tents to signal calls for change. The author also takes into account significant differences between the two camps in that Occupy Toronto was a hard intervention that was ultimately evicted by order of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, while The Encampment was a soft one, co-commissioned by the city.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.058 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".