Los lipdubs, como herramientas de conquista social. Estudio de cuatro casos paradigmáticos realizados en Quebec, EEUU, Cataluña y País Vasco
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El presente artículo compila las principales conclusiones de una investigación llevada a cabo por el autor en torno a los lipdubs como instrumentos de influencia social. Se han analizado cuatro vídeos de amplio impacto en YouTube. Son los siguientes: “I Gotta Feeling-UQAM”, realizado por estudiantes de Comunicación en Quebec (a principios de 2012, fue el lipdub más visitado en Internet); “The Grand Rapids” (este lipdub ostentaba el récord de visitas diarias); “Lipddub independència”, realizado por los movimientos sociales a favor de la independencia de Cataluña (obtuvo el récord mundial de número de participantes, 5.771) y, finalmente, “Lipdub Kukutza”, que era el más visto en el País Vasco. La investigación sostiene que este tipo de vídeos sirven a los movimientos sociales como herramientas eficaces para incrementar su presencia en la esfera pública y como método útil para superar la invisibilidad con la que, frecuentemente, son condenados por los mass-media simplemente por desafiar la cultura dominante.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".