Labour Community Services and the state of community unionism in Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community unionism is still contested in the literature, and its presence across various industries and union formations is often not concretely described. This thesis engages in an examination of community unionism within the literature and assesses its potential presence in Toronto’s Labour Community Services, an organization which provides administrative and organizational support to labour unions and community groups in the Greater Toronto Area. Interviews with LCS organizers and staff members and other Toronto labour activists are assessed against common depictions of community unionism within the literature to determine if LCS is engaged in community unionism, or perhaps some other organizational strategies or philosophies. Interviews demonstrated a clear commitment to community building and deepened ties between the labour movement and various formations of community across Toronto and surrounding regions. Interviews also reveal the state of union-community resources, the barriers commonly experienced in this form of organizing, and how organizers and staff members perceive their role in the broader labour movement. Interviews with key informants reveal a series of strategies and choices which shape how Labour Community Services operates. Ultimately, Labour Community Services does not engage in community unionism as a whole practice, but rather utilizes several strategies and operative choices that share common ground with community unionism. A by-product of these strategic choices is the creation of forms of community unionism between both the labour unions and community groups that LCS frequently works with.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".