Stigma Power, Race, and Public Accountability: An Exploration of the Hard Lockdown of Public Housing in Melbourne
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the intersection between stigma and accountability in the context of a disaster. We draw on the notion of stigma power to explore the COVID-19 pandemic-related hard lockdown of nine public housing towers in Melbourne, Australia, in July 2020. We investigate how stigma is implicated in the construction and operationalisation of systems of public accountability in relation to this disaster. The study adopts a qualitative approach and data is collected from secondary sources (including the Victorian Ombudsman’s report, media reports and social media posts) and 16 in-depth interviews with residents and a wide range of stakeholders. Our findings highlight the complexity of stigma which attaches to public housing and its residents and shows how stigma is drawn upon to create an image of residents as a danger to the public who are not owed care and accountability but rather need to be controlled, isolated and made to account for themselves. The study also shows how residents demonstrate care and accountability to themselves through resistance and how resistance to stigma drives the demand for accountability. This study is original as it provides new insights into the intersection between stigma and accountability particularly during times of crisis.
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 | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".