Bibliographic record
Abstract
Claiming Our Rights was a feminist participatory action research project based at Sistering, a Toronto drop-in for women facing homelessness. At weekly meetings over the course of eighteen months, members learned about social and economic rights, gave testimony on their lived experiences, and undertook actions to claim their rights. Among other initiatives, the group—which members named FORWARD—contributed a report on women’s homelessness to the 2006 review of Canada by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This paper draws upon observations of the group’s process and in-depth interviews with participants to assess this human rights education methodology. I ask, what do poor women’s testimonies and claims contribute to an understanding of homelessness and the rights at stake in it? What does the project suggest about the utility of rights-based processes for grassroots activism on poverty and homelessness? And what lessons does this project hold for social rights advocacy in Canada?
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 | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.055 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| 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".