MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996661875 · doi:10.29173/cjnser.2019v10n2a307

Chasing Funding “To Eat Our Own Tail”: The Invisible Emotional Work of Making Social Change

2019· article· en· W2996661875 on OpenAlex
Jayne Malenfant, Naomi Nichols, Kaitlin Schwan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of nonprofit and social economy research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Work Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesSociologySocial workPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents findings from a multi-site study conducted in Montréal, QC, and Toronto, ON, Canada, on “social innovation” networks, focusing on the forms of emotional and relational work that many participants described. The article explores how these tasks related to how workers in the two nonprofit “backbone” organizations described their contributions to the impacts they hoped to make. The intersections of these forms of work and particular identities are framed within a feminist lens—when and how are these forms of relational work recognized or made invisible? This work is contextualized within neoliberal reforms, the restructuring of the state, and external funding requirements and how these determine what forms of work are deemed “impactful” in making significant social change around broad issues of homelessness and social exclusion.Cet article présente les résultats d’une étude multi-sites sur les réseaux « d’innovation sociale » menée à Montréal, QC et Toronto, ON, Canada, et met l’accent sur des formes de travail émotionnel et relationnel décrites par de nombreux participants. Les auteurs explorent la relation entre ces tâches et la manière dont les travailleurs de deux organismes à but non lucratif centraux décrivent leurs contributions aux impacts qu’ils espéraient avoir. Les intersections de ces travaux et des identités particulières s’inscrivent dans une perspective féministe—quand et comment les formes de travail relationnelles sont-elles reconnues ou rendues invisible? Cet article s’inscrit dans le cadre des réformes néolibérales, de la restructuration de l’État et des besoins des bailleurs de fonds externes, et comment ceux-ci déterminent quelles formes de travail sont considérées comme ayant un impact « décisif » sur le changement social important autour des grandes questions de l’itinérance et d’exclusion sociale.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.297
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.160 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it