The Emotional Contradictions of Identity Politics: A Case Study of a Failed Human Relations Commission
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 case study of the birth and death of a human relations commission in California contributes to our understanding of the emotional stakes of social movement participation and the meaning of multiculturalism in the U.S. post–civil rights era. The research indicates the extent to which resonant movement frames are necessary for movement success and how their absence can cause emotional harm to movement adherents. In this account of institutional activism, the frameworks of human relations and multiculturalism—simultaneously affective and amorphous— attracted participation but produced a harmful emotional climate and ultimately proved insufficient to inspire collective identity and action. Thus, instead of transforming social movement behavior, the state project of human relations deployed here succeeded in invigorating entrenched grievances and identities. Other factors, such as leadership, social movement identity work, and the “emotion culture” of movements are also discussed. Findings presented herein are based on one year of participant observation, twenty-four interviews, and analysis of public records.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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