‘Participation—with what money and whose time?’ An intersectional feminist analysis of community participation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The paper presents the results of community-based participatory action research that evaluated the quality and extent of resident participation in community development projects initiated by a network of non-profit and public agencies in a lower-income, racialized neighbourhood in Toronto. The paper examines dynamics of community engagement and volunteer participation in relation to the socio-political context of neoliberal urban development within which they unfold. Against this backdrop, the paper discusses processes of normalization and the mainstreaming of a technocratic or instrumental approach to community engagement. The paper argues how this instrumental approach extracts volunteer participation from residents to meet short-term organizational targets while offering no genuine opportunity for residents to co-create long-term, meaningful solutions to community needs and priorities. Such short-term, ‘band-aid’ community engagement and capacity building projects contribute to a crisis of trust between residents and the non-profit agencies. The paper presents a community engagement continuum mapping indicators for technocratic and extractivist community engagement in contrast to indicators for transformative and empowering processes.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it