MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Social Forums, Social Movements and Social Change: A Response to Peter Marcuse on the Subject of the World Social Forum

2005· article· en· W2110864574 on OpenAlexaff
Janet Conway

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Urban and Regional Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisionPower (physics)Social movementSociologyHumanitiesSocial changeGender studiesPoliticsPolitical scienceAnthropologyPhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This response to Peter Marcuse situates his reading of the World Social Forum in the larger ‘space versus movement’ debate that has been raging among the WSF’s organizers. The author argues that this debate signals: (1) a power struggle over its future; (2) profound disagreement over the character of its power, which is itself based in conflicting understandings and visions of power and change in the contemporary period more generally; (3) at the heart of this last conflict is a yet more basic one about the status of multiplicity and diversity — in understanding power(s), in building resistance(s), in creating alternatives, in crafting solidarities, in imagining other possible worlds as les raisons d’être of the Social Forum. Drawing on the historical experience of feminism, the author proposes an alternative reading of the meaning of the Social Forum grounded in more multivalent understandings of power, movements and change, and argues that, in the evolving practice of the World Social Forum, a new democratic imaginary — post‐liberal and post‐Marxist — is taking shape and, with it, other possible futures are coming into view. Cette réponse à Peter Marcuse replace son explication du Forum social mondial dans le débat plus vaste ‘espace et mouvement’ qui a enflammé les organisateurs du FSM. En effet, ce débat met en évidence plusieurs aspects: une lutte de pouvoir pour son avenir; un désaccord profond quant à la nature de son pouvoir, s’appuyant lui‐même sur des appréhensions et visions contradictoires du pouvoir et du changement dans la période contemporaine, de manière générale; au cœur de cette opposition, en existe une autre encore plus fondamentale sur la situation de multiplicité et de diversité, pour comprendre le ou les pouvoirs, élaborer une ou plusieurs résistances, créer des alternatives, tisser des solidarités, imaginer d’autres possibilités de monde comme les raisons d’être du Forum social. S’inspirant de l’expérience historique du féminisme, l’article propose une autre lecture du Forum social, fondée sur des compréhensions plus polyvalentes du pouvoir, des mouvements et du changement; de plus, il affirme que, dans le cadre de l’exercice évolutif du Forum social mondial, prend forme un nouvel imaginaire démocratique — post‐libéral et post‐marxiste — et, qu’avec lui, se dessinent d’autres possibilités d’avenir.

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)0.004
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.175
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.273 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations50
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Urban and Regional ResearchSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207