Using a Resistance Lens to Understand Performative Compliance of Low-Income Lone Mothers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The agency of lone mothers who rely on government income supports is often erased by the discourse of dependency, especially under welfare-to-work eligibility criteria. Here we apply the concept of small acts of micro-resistance in constrained circumstances, augmented by conceptualization of resistance as conscious oppositionality and intentionality to understand the agency of lone-mothers who receive income-assistance (IA) as they make-do and raise children under state- and market-enforced rules. Using a resistance lens reveals the interconnected importance of everyday acts like “talking back” to income-support staff, surreptitious gleaning of goods for resale, and re-storying the self. We describe these in three modalities: resistance as evasion and subterfuge; resistance through asserting positive identities; and resistance in forging their own path. Using a conceptual framework of resistance reveals the extent to which women’s survival and capacity to raise children are contingent on a performance of compliance, demonstrating the impacts of welfare-to-work on female-headed lone parent families.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".