The Ambiguous Power of Social Media: Hegemony or Resistance?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent developments have demonstrated the efficacy and effectiveness of social media as a veritable tool for mobilization and networking.Ordinary citizens rely on the power of social media to mobilize against sit-tight leaders.Oppressed citizens use social media to protest against bad government and anti-people's policies.Based on the findings of a recent research, this article discusses recent protests across the world and how citizens use the new media and social media during the protests to stay connected, plot strategies and circulate news to the rest of the world.The article concluded that; with the new media, citizen-reporters and social media, there is no hiding place or safe haven for sit-tight leaders and anti-people policies as citizens are better empowered than ever by emerging technologies to challenge the status quo.The paper therefore hypothesizes that the ambiguous power of social media has become a tool for resistance movements as well as hegemony as demonstrated at the protest sites around the world such as the 2014 Burkinabé Uprising, Occupy Wall Street, the Arab Spring, the chilean students' protest, the Los Indignados movement, the Québec student's strike and Idle no more in Canada etc., The ambiguous power of the social media has become a major issue in recent years in view of the use of the social media by protester to stay connected during protest to resist authoritarian regimes around the world.The use of the social media as a tool for resistance or hegemony in recent years has brought the issue to the Ambiguous power of the social media to the forefront of academic debate.It therefore becomes imperative to explore the double edge sword nature of the social media to determine its full impact on the society.This will add to our knowledge of social media as a veritable tool for resistance and hegemony.
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 | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.089 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.038 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".