Community mobilization in a small Canadian city
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Like other communities throughout the world, Sault Ste. Marie has had to meet challenges that arise and achieve various goals that require the mobilization and organization of community members. Government, alone, cannot satisfy all community needs and desires. One type of community mobilization that is utilized is the single-issue community mobilization that takes place without an ongoing formal organizational structure in limited time frames of re latively short duration. This type of recruitment and organization of community assets in Sault Ste. Marie was required to assist in saving its largest employer and its favorite hockey team, provide needed services and facilities, raise funds sufficient to meet government requirements for a state-of-the-art hospital, host provincial, national, and international events, celebrate the community and support many other worthy endeavors. For more than forty years, I was a practising lawyer in Sault Ste. Marie acting on behalf of numerous institutions, industries, businesses and government agencies. Much of my time was spent sitting on federal, provincial and local boards and agencies as well as being involved, at all levels, in community projects in sports, the arts, political campaigns, and fund raisers. In addition, I have had the privilege to take a leadership role in a number of successful community mobilizations that required the organization and recruitment of community assets to meet a specific challenge or goal. Being only one of many who have taken on such responsibilities in a number of specific challenges requiring community mobilization in Sault Ste. Marie, I have been interested for some time in examining examples of successful community mobilization in Sault Ste. Marie to determine the influences and processes that assist in leading to successful community mobilization.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.060 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 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".