Urban Community Gardens as Sites for Individual and Collective Wellbeing the Cultivation of Other-than-Capitalist Subjectivities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on interviews with 34 gardeners across ten sites in the City of Toronto, this study assesses the role of urban community gardening in improving wellbeing and in cultivating novel subjectivities. Wellbeing is assessed at individual and collective levels, using an Occupational Therapy Framework focused on doing, being, becoming, and belonging, and a Dimensions of Wellbeing Framework respectively. The study suggests that community gardens contribute positively to both individual and collective wellbeing. The study also identifies conditions present in community gardens which cultivate either neoliberal capitalist or other-than-capitalist subjectivities. Community gardeners are found to be exposed to contradictory forces that foster both neoliberal capitalist and other-than- capitalist subject positions. The concept of peri-capitalism is employed to explain gardeners’ complex, hybrid, emergent subjectivities. The thesis concludes by engaging Holloway’s (2010) concept of crack capitalism, and advances community gardens as sites for expanding “cracks” in capitalism to prefigure alternative, more life-giving futures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".