Lives on Edge: everyday practices of people experiencing poverty in disadvantaged areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Growing socio-spatial disparities in Western countries is a worrying trend which harms opportunities for a better future, particularly for people experiencing poverty. While the causes for growing socio-spatial inequalities are connected to global economic currents, the polarizing consequences are experienced in the context of everyday life, by ordinary people in cities, towns, and streets. 'Lives on Edge' aims to comprehend the ways in which people experiencing poverty are affected by increasing socio-spatial inequalities in the context of their everyday lives. Based on three ethnographic case studies in the city of Groningen (the Netherlands), the city of Calgary (Canada), and the rural region of the Groninger Veenkoloniën (the Netherlands), this thesis paints a detailed picture of the everyday practices of people experiencing poverty in these disadvantaged areas and how local socio-spatial developments relate to their experiences. The ethnographic evidence from these case studies demonstrates that participants feel that their everyday practices are increasingly marginalized and oppressed with respect to their social and spatial surroundings. An exacerbating factor in this marginalizing process is the tenacious focus of local socio-spatial developments on appearance, rather than focusing on achieving better prospects for vulnerable residents. As a result, the lives of people experiencing poverty are increasingly on edge.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".