Ann Mische, Partisan Publics: Communication and Contention across Brazilian Youth Activist Networks.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
T his challenging book by Ann Mische analyzes the changing com- position of youth activist networks in a period of democratization in Brazil, from the late 1970s to the late 1990s.It will be of great interest to social movement scholars, social network analysts, and students of Latin American, especially Brazilian, politics.Partisan Publics examines the multiple affiliations of activists in different kinds of movements and organizations.Mische conducted ethnographic research in the 1990s, interacting with participants in a wide variety of groups, and attending organizational events of the student movement, student course associations, religious groups, antidiscrimination organizations, business organizations, and youth factions/wings of several political parties.She follows the trajectories of young Brazilian activists through intersecting institutional sectors, including religious, student, partisan, NGO, antidiscrimination, professional, and business groups.She provides a structural analysis of activists' careers, and demonstrates how these intersections change over time.She argues that shifting structural relations lead to variations in the opportunities and challenges faced by different cohorts of activists, and emphasizes their mediating role: "On the one hand, young activists located at the intersections of an expanding and diversifying field contributed to innovation, institution-building, and new forms of cross-sectoral communication.On the other hand, their interactions led at times to competition, polarization, and institutional paralysis or breakdown" (p.19).Mische draws on an extraordinarily wide selection of theoretical perspectives.From the vantage point of the social movement literature, the work is most closely aligned with the "contentious politics" framework.While there is much emphasis on structural relations, and upon political opportunities, Mische is also a superb cultural theorist, and much of the book focuses on cultural aspects of youth politics.(The influence of her mentors, Charles Tilly -the great scholar of social movements and almost everything else -and Harrison White, a leading social network
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".