Stories and strategies of resistance: multi-stakeholder advocacy efforts in publicly-provided home support services in Ontario.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Major Research Paper conducted analysis of narrative interviews that explored the experiences of individuals involved with a multi-stakeholder advocacy group, Quality Care Alliance. During its period of operation, the Alliance advocated around intersecting issues facing home care workers, service users, and family members. The research sought to learn about the efforts of QCA and experiences of its members, in terms of the enabling factors, successes, barriers and challenges faced. This research aims to contribute to knowledge about multistakeholder advocacy within the context of neoliberalism. Six themes were uncovered around: participants’ roots of involvement in advocacy, (dis/non)engagement, making solo struggles shared, value of connections and relationships, group processes and challenges related to the work. Anti-oppressive social work practitioners could benefit from supporting advocacy efforts that involve diverse stakeholders, and employing decolonizing practices while engaging in such efforts, especially within the constraints of a neoliberal context.
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 | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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".