Reclaiming the inner city, an assessment of community organizing practice in Winnipeg's core
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This practicum focuses on a critique of the types of community organizing processes within Winnipeg's inner city neighbourhoods. This study examines the extent to which organizers involve community members. Current planning theories--including equity planning, collaborative planning, and radical planning--as well as different models and types of organizing techniques were examined and then used as a knowledge base from which the empirical research findings were analyzed. The empirical data was gathered through a series of twelve interviews with local inner city organizers using an interview guide approach. The overall organizing trend within Winnipeg's inner city appears to be one that is inclusive and democratic. When applied to the organizing literature, the empirical findings indicate that local community organizing can be compared to the technique of community building. This research has determined that people need control of the process and planners and organizers need to become resources for the community as opposed to leading the process. It is recommended that learning from radical planning theory and its application to community organizing practice can assist planners and organizers to realize the role they must play in order for their work to be empowering for community members.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".