MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4300958693 · doi:10.46692/9781447320081.008

Policy events, race and the future of the city

2017· other· en· W4300958693 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Planning and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRace (biology)SociologyGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It was all about how do you meet the needs of the students and their families? And it wasn't that an Africentric school was the answer. It was that there wasn't one answer. (Black Canadian, Trustee, TDSB) This book has worked from the premise that policy is ad hoc and uncertain, and that one way to undertake policy analysis is through a policy problematisation that would ‘identify conditions and registers that have disqualified parallel (that is, rival, contradictory) thoughts, practices, and enactments’ (Webb and Gulson, 2015a: 40). We have explored the multiple ways in which the policy event of the Africentric Alternative School could be traced and mapped, to speak to the idea that there was no one answer either to Black schooling in Toronto or to why and how the school was established. Our policy problematisation has identified several effects of the policy event (the development of the Africentric Alternative School) that do not have clear outcomes or hidden truths. In each chapter we have been interested in the idea that policy events have no determinate outcomes – and no determinate origins – which reproduce events due to the role that chance has in our evental lives. As we outlined in the introductory chapter, we have been interested in the idea of an abductive approach, as ‘concerned with the relationship between a situation and inquiry’ (Brinkmann, 2014: 722), that meant – as St Pierre and Jackson noted (citing Deleuze and Guattari) – that we work ‘through the middle’ without a beginning or end to analysis (St Pierre and Jackson, 2014). In these final thoughts of this book, we realise we have, perhaps, been undertaking work not just ‘through the middle’ but that we have attempted to undertake what Deleuze called looking at ‘in between’, and that this sums up our interest in refusing one or even multiple ‘origins’ linked to narrative expositions about the Africentric Alternative School. Deleuze, in reflecting on contemporary thought, stated: If things aren't going too well in contemporary thought, it's because there's a return under the name of ‘modernism’ to abstractions, back to the problem of origins, all that sort of thing … It was no longer a question of starting or finishing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUrban Planning and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207