Homelessness & Activism in Toronto & Montreal: Toward Community-Based Participatory Research & Emergent Strategy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research explores generating a community-based participatory research (CBPR) project on technology, broadly construed, with housing justice and anti-poverty activist communities in Canada. This research employs stratified purposive sampling and semi-structured open-ended interviewing methods with Toronto and Montréal activists and is approached from the perspective of a CBPR methodology. 12 activists were interviewed for this research. Interviews indicate that barriers and access to technology centre on education, trustworthiness, usability, and dependability. However, activists also desire systemic and structural change grounded in communities. Activists indicate that elite academic researchers, people who represent the state, and corporations cannot solve issues surrounding homelessness and the Canadian housing market. Instead, activists recommend emergent project creation anchored in community as a possible avenue for mitigating aspects of these phenomena. As such, this research provides an appropriate foundation for multiple community projects beyond this text.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 it