Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the emergence and implications of the anti-war protests ranged against the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq. In highlighting Australia's involvement in the anti-war movement of 2003 and beyond, the article draws attention to the role of new technologies in transforming practices of political engagement. Attention is drawn to the global democratic possibilities that arise from such developments as well as their challenges and limitations. Introduction The US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 was followed by an on-going period of occupation characterised by chaos, destabilisation and bloodletting (see for example, Cockburn 2006; Fisk 2005; Shadid 2006). Prior to the invasion, and especially in February of 2003, there were perhaps the biggest anti-war protests in human history, led by peace activists and an assortment of oppositional groups and organisations. In focussing on developments in Australia, this article reflects on the nature of this protest movement and its implications for the development of a global civil society. (The emergence of such a 'society' is considered in terms of the rise of various justice movements and the potential for cross-national communication and organisation facilitated by cyber technologies). The article contends that the anti-war protests in and around 2003 reflected the capacity of certain sections of an emergent global civil society to participate effectively in the development of new democratic spaces that obviated more traditional processes of political engagement. It also examines some of the challenges to a developing global civil society stemming from the invasion of Iraq and how, through the use of new technologies, the anti-war movement (and other justice movements) have sought to address some of these challenges. (By 'civil society' I refer broadly to those general forms of individual and collective expressions that reside outside the state and market. This applies to various social and political engagements and mobilisations both within national boundaries and more broadly at the regional and global levels). Against War In the period just prior to the invasion of Iraq, and especially on the weekend of February 15 -16, 2003, world-wide protests took place in over 800 cities, with over 2 million people marching in London. An estimated total of 10 million demonstrators marched against the war. The anti-war movement was constituted of literally thousands of individuals, groups, communities, and organisational alliances and coalitions. Examples of the latter include: Anti War Coalition (South Africa), Global Peace and Justice Auckland (New Zealand), Arms Against War (Britain), Canadian Peace Alliance (Canada), Students for Democracy and Peace (Britain), Antiwar.com (US), Campus Anti War Network (US), Iraq Peace Action Coalition (US), United for Peace and Justice (US), Not in Our Name (Australia), No War with Iraq (Australia) and international groups such as International Campaign Against Aggression on Iraq and War Resisters' International (see Guardian Unlimited (2008) and Anti War Websites (2003) for comprehensive list of anti-war organisations). Patrick Tyler (2003) of the New York Times cited the protests as evidence that public opinion was the world's second major 'superpower', able to bring considerable pressure to bear on governments (For a comprehensive discussion of the various international groups involved in these protests see Wikimedia Foundation 2008). Mindful of the mass opposition to the war, US President George W. Bush remarked to a reporter: 'First of all, you know, size of protests - it's like deciding, Well, I'm going to decide policy based upon a focus group. The role of a leader is to decide policy based upon, in this case, the security of the people' (sic) (Gonia 2003,1). Needless to say, this rather inarticulate and puerile defence - echoed more eloquently by Tony Blair and John Howard - did not mitigate the concerns of millions of protestors. …
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| 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".