Making Time for Critique: Canadian ‘Right to Shelter’ Debates in a Chrono-Political Frame
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article engages with Canadian ‘right to shelter’ discourse, with a focus on shared assumptions that do crucial work but are sometimes unstated. It offers a ‘chrono-political’ framework to organize various claims made in the courtroom, in legal academic commentary, and by homeless people themselves. People sleeping outdoors have had noteworthy success in court, preventing immediate bodily peril. However, the ‘emergency’ temporality in those cases ultimately offers a limited politics. The author evaluates proposals from legal academics who therefore prescribe court orders that aim to transcend emergency protection: the state ought proactively to provide some minimal level of shelter to everyone, thereby conjoining the emergency temporality with a longer term ‘progressive’ temporality. However, it is argued that these proposals insufficiently formulate how judges understand their institutional role and the extent to which courtroom doctrine can redirect wider neoliberal trends. Regulative assumptions about ‘gradual improvement’ in the law must themselves be interrogated. As an antipode for the courtroom emergency temporality, a ‘dissensual’ temporality is explored, not as a ‘solution,’ but as an already operant politics, one not previously explored in legal academic commentary on the ‘right to shelter.’ Never to be romanticized, the tent city is nonetheless seen to enact what Jacques Rancière terms ‘dissensus,’ in which participants stage their equality in a way that calls into question the existing arrangement of political intelligibility. Amidst present constraints, dissensus discloses an expansive nonlinear temporality that channels egalitarian predecessors, taking feasible action in the present and attempting to prefigure a more equal future dwelling arrangement.
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 | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.067 | 0.073 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".