Is the North American Anti-Globalization Movement Racist? Critical reflections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A number of criticisms about racism have been levelled at the North American anti-globalization movement. They include: The movement is disproportionately white. When confronted with the lack of diversity in the movement, whites tend to claim that their groups are already open and accessible, or propose to solve the problem by doing 'outreach'. White-dominated organizations have exclusionary practices and when challenged refuse to respond, calling concerns about racism, sexism, etc., 'distractions' from more 'urgent' work. Activists who can afford time and money to travel to mass events must be affluent and they protest at low risk because they know their 'white skin privilege' will protect them from police brutality. White activists position themselves as the experts and are the visible spokespeople and de facto leadership. Cultural modes (lifestyles, intellectual styles, meeting styles, and protest tactics) preferred by anti-globalization activists are alienating to people of colour. Local communities of colour are put at risk by mass protests operating out of their neighbourhoods. Anti-globalization activists do not seem to care about domestic problems faced by people of colour within the US and Canada, continuing a tradition of organizing which ultimately perpetuates white supremacy. Activism around issues in third world countries is psychologically remote and therefore easier than activism around issues of race at home. Privileged activism on behalf of oppressed others is paternalistic and salvific.
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 | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".