MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002141151 · doi:10.1080/0031322032000144492

Surviving and thriving by becoming more ‘groupuscular’: the case of the Heritage Front

2003· article· en· W2002141151 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bonnie Burstow

Bibliographic record

VenuePatterns of Prejudice · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThrivingFront (military)DemocracySociologyFlexibility (engineering)Linkage (software)Political scienceLawPoliticsManagementSocial scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Burstow explores the genus ‘radical-right groupuscule’ via a case study of the Canadian group known as the Heritage Front. She outlines and analyses three stages of the group’s history. Stage one, or ‘the heyday’, was characterized by a significant number of publications, a drive to recruit youth, meetings with leaders throughout Canada and the world, the organization of White Power concerts and militant fighting in the streets. In stage two the Front was far less active while also becoming more groupuscular: decentralized and comparatively leaderless. Burstow identifies the exploitation of the Internet as the principal characteristic of stage three, and elaborates on the possibilities for synergy that new conditions make available. A number of groupuscular features are identified as giving the Heritage Front the flexibility to survive during the present period of parliamentary democracy and to rebound from difficulties, including decentralization, leaderlessness, linkage, the facilitation of linkage, flexible policies, identification with the network as a whole, and use of virtual space. Accordingly, Burstow argues that the accentuation of groupuscular features is a plausible survival strategy for a groupuscule in difficulty.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.399
Threshold uncertainty score0.525

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePatterns of PrejudiceSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207