Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social Forums, modeled on the World Social Forums, are not social movements in the classic sense. They are not, and do not purport to be, the organizational form through which basic social change will be achieved, or can best be pursued. But they do bring together elements of many social movements, afford an opportunity for coalition‐building among them, frequently around urban issues, and thus make a significant contribution to achieving such change. Conceivably they may be the foundation for an international social movement for change, but if so it is likely to coalesce about a specifically political program. Some concrete suggestions are made which might enhance their effectiveness. Les Forums sociaux, sur le modèle des Forums sociaux mondiaux, ne sont pas des mouvements sociaux au sens traditionnel. Ils ne sont, ni ne sont censés être, la forme d’organisation permettant d’atteindre ou de mener au mieux un changement social fondamental. Cependant, ils réunissent des composantes de nombreux mouvements sociaux, leur offrent une possibilité de créer une coalition (souvent autour de problèmes urbains) et contribuent ainsi fortement à l’évolution visée. En théorie, ils peuvent servir de base à un mouvement social international en faveur d’un changement, quoique ayant alors tendance à s’unir sur un programme politique. Les suggestions concrètes qui sont formulées peuvent en améliorer l’efficacité.
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 | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.028 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.005 |
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".