MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096219899 · doi:10.1177/0010414004263662

Explaining Social Movement Outcomes

2004· article· en· W2096219899 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueComparative Political Studies · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical and Social Dynamics in Chile and Latin America
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsContext (archaeology)Political opportunityGender studiesSocial movementMeaning (existential)FeminismSociologyCollective actionPolitical scienceMovement (music)Frame (networking)Political economyLawPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article compares the outcomes of first- and second-wave feminism in Chile. The author argues that the double-militancy strategy of second-wave feminists emerged out of shifts in the political opportunity structure that led the movement to adapt its collective action frame. First-wave feminists had constructed a gender frame that depicted women as apolitical. In a context in which political parties were class based and saw little need to address women’s issues, neither the gender frame nor the political opportunity structure invited a double-militancy strategy. The context for second-wave activists was different. The politicization of women’s maternal identities altered the meaning of the maternal gender frame. Because the prodemocracy parties needed the support of women’s movements (and female voters), they invited women’s participation. Thus, the political opportunity structure and a more politicized gender frame encouraged a double-militancy strategy, ultimately leading to the realization of some of the movement’s goals.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.826
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.281 · 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