Transnational Agrarian Movements: Origins and Politics, Campaigns and Impact
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay introduces a special issue of the Journal of Agrarian Change on transnational agrarian movements (TAMs). The contributors’ methods and subjects vary widely in geographical, temporal and political scope. The contributors to this collection share an understanding of TAMs’ complexity that grows out of an appreciation of the complicated historical origins and the delicate political balancing acts that necessarily characterize any effort to construct cross‐border alliances linking highly heterogeneous organizations, social classes, ethnicities, political viewpoints and regions. This introductory essay outlines the TAMs’ deep historical roots and also explains why and how the authors in this collection see this complexity as an essential element in understanding TAMs. This complexity can be understood by looking at seven common themes: (i) representation and agendas, (ii) political strategies and forms of actions, (iii) impact, (iv) TAMs as arenas of action between different (sub)national movements, (v) class origins, (vi) ideological and political differences and (vii) the dynamics of alliance‐building. By acknowledging TAMs’ contradictions, ambiguities and internal tensions, the authors also seek, from the standpoint of engaged intellectuals, to advance a transformative political project by better comprehending its origins, past successes and failures, and current and future challenges.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it