Skin In The Game: Black Participatory Action Research (BPR) and Black Anarchist Coalition Building for Anti-Black Racist Organizing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Utilizing a Black Participatory Research (BPR) (Drame & Irby, 2016) methodology, this research convened 10 local Black organizers representing 5 organizations across amiskwacîwâskahikan (Edmonton) to co-investigate and improve our praxis and collective understanding of Black coalition building as a form of anti-Black resistance to anti-Black racism and structural violence. Guided by six emergent and related research questions, BPR data generation included educational sessions with 3 members of the BPR team, 3 focus groups, and 7 interviews with Key Informants. Data was analyzed collectively while drawing from select literature and respective and shared organizing experiences. Black radical theories centering Afropessimism (Wilderson, 2020) and Black Anarchism (Ervin, 2021) were deemed as inseparable tools for actioning Black personal collective resistances and survivals. BPR calls for an organic strategy of building coalition bonds across Black experiences and asserts that Black anarchist coalition is an essential ideology and pedagogical strategy for strengthening Black organizing and resistance work locally, regionally, and ultimately, for global Black survivals. Black Organizers in this project affirmed the need for a continued commitment for: (1) comprehensive political education; (2) adopting intersectional Black radical praxis; and (3) building community-wide power while prioritizing Black survivals. In realizing the necessity for new/alternative strategies of Black resistance, this project is ultimately concerned with understanding and contributing towards Black coalition formations to resist anti-Black racism and anti-Blackness in perpetuity.
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 | 0.045 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".