MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122502902 · doi:10.1177/0196859911416502

Communication Commoning Amidst the New Enclosures

2011· article· en· W2122502902 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

VenueJournal of Communication Inquiry · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPopulism, Right-Wing Movements
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommonsSocialityPoliticsSociologyMediationEpistemologyEnclosureResistance (ecology)Environmental ethicsLaw and economicsPolitical scienceSocial scienceLawComputer scienceTelecommunicationsEcologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article considers autonomist practices of communication commoning amidst the neoliberal enclosures. I reflect on recent theoretical distinctions between the notion of the common and the commons and argue for an approach that brings them together both conceptually and in practice. One place where we find the common and the commons converge is in globalizing communication infrastructures. And it is through the infrastructure of global communication, I argue, that one of the principle political technologies of contemporary enclosure comes into sharpest focus: fear. If, as many observers contend, the political use of fear is instrumental to modern processes of enclosure, we can look to the urban communication infrastructure is a site of resistance to the double enclosure of the common and the commons because it is a site that encompasses both the means of mediation and the wealth of human sociality. To illustrate, I briefly discuss three examples in which the communication infrastructures are appropriated by social movements whose aim is to resist the politics of fear while they re-claim the communicational common/s.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.623
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.000
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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.235 · 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