Social Movement Structures in Relation to Goals and Forms of Action: An Exploratory Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This article describes a theoretical taxonomy of the structural features of social movements. We begin by using two classification criteria to analyze the types of relations that characterize the structure of social movements. From there, we look at how differences in structure relate to different goals and forms of action. We then derive a four-fold classification system based on formalization and hierarchy of relationships. For each classification we provide case descriptions of social movements (or parts thereof) using literature on how different movement structures support different types of goals and forms of action. Furthermore, we discuss the dynamics of social movements (or parts thereof) and how their classification may evolve. By doing so, we illustrate how changes in structure, goals, and forms of action mutually influence each other. RÉSUMÉ Cet article dresse une taxonomie théorique des caractéristiques structurelles des mouvements sociaux. Nous utilisons d’abord deux critères de classification pour analyser les types de relation propres à la structure des mouvements sociaux. Par la suite, nous observons comment des différences de structure coïncident avec des buts et des formes d’action différents. Nous développons ensuite un système de classification quadruple fondé sur la formalisation et l’hiérarchisation des relations. Pour chacune des classifications, nous fournissons des descriptions de cas de mouvements sociaux (ou de parties de ceux-ci) en recourant à des écrits sur la manière dont des structures de mouvement différentes entraînent des buts et des formes d’action différents. En outre, nous discutons des dynamiques des mouvements sociaux (ou de parties de ceux-ci) et comment leur classification pourrait évoluer. Par ce moyen, nous illustrons comment des changements de structure, de but et de forme d’action s’influencent réciproquement.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".