Strange Bedfellows: Contentious Coalitions and the Politics of CM Wheat*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En 2004, une coalition d'organismes de fermiers et de mouvements sociaux réussit à s'opposer à l'introduction du blé génétiquement modifié de Monsanto au Canada. Malgré ce succès, des divisions parmi les participants posèrent des difficultés à encadrer le problème de façpn cohérente pour la coalition. S'inspirant d'une approche néo‐gramscienne des mouvements sociaux, cette étude éclaire le processus d'encadrement de la coalition en analysant le contenu du traitement médiatique de la controverse et d'autres documents. Quoiqu'elle ait réussi à exprimer les plaintes de membres divers, la coalition encadra son opposition au blé géenétiquement modifié de telle façon que la possibilité d'une critique globale du pouvoir dans le système agro‐alimentaire fut limitée. In 2004, a coalition of farmers' and social movement organizations successfully opposed the introduction of Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) wheat in Canada. Despite this success, divisions among participants presented the coalition with challenges in coherently framing the issue. Drawing upon a neo‐Gramscian approach to social movements, this study illuminates processes of coalition framing by analyzing newsprint coverage of the controversy and other documentary sources. While able to express the grievances of diverse constituencies, the coalition framed its opposition to GM wheat in a way that circumscribed the potential for a more comprehensive critique of entrenched power in the agrofood system.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".