MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1602272696

Cultural Codes as Catalysts for Collective Conscientisation in Environmental Adult Education: Mr. Floatie, Tree Squatting and Save-Our-Surfers.

2012· article· en· W1602272696 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pierre Walter

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Adult Learning · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrassrootsSociologyIdeologyGovernment (linguistics)Collective actionSocial movementAction (physics)PoliticsPolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines how cultural codes in environmental adult education can be used to 'frame' collective identity, develop counterhegemonic ideologies, and catalyse 'educative-activism' within social movements. Three diverse examples are discussed, spanning environmental movements in urban Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, the redwoods of northern California, and the coral reefs and beaches of Hawai'i, respectively. The first, Mr. Floatie and his fight for sewage treatment, illustrates how art, humour and drama can be employed to mobilise the public, media and government to action. The second, Julia Butterfly Hill and her 738-day squat in a redwood tree, shows how cultural codes embodied in both tree and woman catalysed social action for forest preservation. The third, the grassroots organisation Save Our Surf, demonstrates the effectiveness of education and activism through immediate, multiple and short-term symbolic appeals for help, leading to long-term success in Hawaiian coastal conservation.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0100.011
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.238
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of Adult LearningSame topicParticipatory Visual Research MethodsFrench-language works237,207