Policy events, race and the future of the city
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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".