Permission to Dissent: A research proposal on urban youth inciting social change through personal storytelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Permission to Dissent will be about finding within ourselves the need for something more from our daily lives and from society at large. It is about recognizing that we are all vital characters in the storied lives we live and the actions we take over the roles we play. Permission to Dissent is a research proposal on the story of urban youth in Montreal who choose to play roles as agents of social change in their communities. Their stories will be provocative imperatives to disrupt taken-for-granted societal patterns that keep people struggling. Using their lived experiences as social analysis, they will expose systems and practices of inequality, and incite alternative stories of fairness and justice where people can thrive instead of survive. Permission to Dissent will also be about my story and the different characters I have played through my experiences that shape my perspective and inform this research design. It will be an example of disruptive research that uses creative, collaborative storytelling with young people to share a much-needed message of possibility. These stories will resonate for youth, professionals working with youth, and communities of people who feel like they matter.
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 | 0.054 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".