“I KNOW IT’S THREE IN THE MORNING, BUT OUR HOUSES HAVE JUST BLOWN UP! CALL NANCE TO OPEN THE COMMUNITY CENTRE! ” THE ROLE OF A NEIGHBOURHOOD ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORTING RESIDENTS IN A TIME OF CRISIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
development in the northern section of this southern Ontario city. This development proposal became highly controversial as it was planned to include both detached and semi-detached housing units, and local residents were concerned that the construction was going to be sub-standard. It was also feared that this amount of high density housing was doomed to be a hot-bed for a variety of social problems. While the housing development did proceed, the stigma (Goffman, 1963) attached to that neighbourhood by the broader community was significant. In response to this stigma, the residents formed a neighbourhood association to address the lack of recreation opportunities that existed, and to strategize some community pride initiatives. Over many years, the neighbourhood association was highly successful in planning and implementing a full range of recreation programmes for its youth and families, and had developed partnerships with a number of community organizations to provide continuing education opportunities, health services, and social supports to its ’ residents. Meeting informally in residents ’ homes during it’s formative years, the neighbourhood association eventually located its operation in a rented town-
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.003 |
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".