MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W12924961 · doi:10.1021/ar020267y

HAS HOPE DIED? THE SUCCESSES OF SOCIAL MOVEMENT AND ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS IN THE POST-CIVIL RIGHTS ERA

2005· dissertation· en· W12924961 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Margaret Mitchell Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounts of Chemical Research · 2005
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceGovernment (linguistics)LegislatureLegislationPoliticsCivil societySocial movementPublic administrationQuarter (Canadian coin)Public relationsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the work of social movement and interest group organizations on behalf of women, African Americans and the homeless between 1975 and 2000. Four major questions are pursued. How have marginalized communities attempted to empower themselves at the national level during the last quarter of the 20th century? What success did they achieve? What contributed to that success? And are there differences between types of marginalized communities with respect to activities, success and contributions to success? To answer these questions, I collected data on forty-five national level organizations (15 from each category of women, African American and homeless groups). Three measures of success are constructed. The first, outcome success, measures whether and to what degree movements and their organizations have made a difference for their constituency. The second, legislative success, measures whether and to what degree movements and their organizations have pushed through supportive legislation in Congress. Finally, perceived success measures the range of success leaders feel their organizations have met. I find that the success of social movement and advocacy organizations is the result of internal and external factors and differs by group. Internally, success is a function of what groups are asking for and how they are asking for it. Externally, success is a function of who is helping an organization and how receptive the broader environment is to its needs. I find that outcome success is dependent upon an organization's age, structure, and local crises and how radical its demands are: less radical demands produce increased outcome successes; older organizations and those with federated structures produce greater collective benefits; and local crises enhance outcome success. Legislative success is largely dependent upon public opinion but none of the other factors. Finally, I find that perceived success has more to do with internal issues, relationships and openness than with strategies and tactics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.031
Scholarly communication0.0130.011
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.410 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccounts of Chemical ResearchSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207