MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2245221088 · doi:10.1080/10417940309373277

The talk of movers and shakers: Class conflict in the making of a community disaster

2003· article· en· W2245221088 on OpenAlexaff
Lana F. Rakow, Becky Belter, Heidi Dyrstad, Jodi Hallsten, Jay Johnson, Keri Indvik

Bibliographic record

VenueSouthern Communication Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRhetoric and Communication Studies
Canadian institutionsGeorge Brown College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlameIdeologyPoliticsAction (physics)Public relationsCollective actionClass (philosophy)Flood mythPolitical scienceSociologyEvent (particle physics)CriminologySocial psychologyPsychologyLawGeographyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Communities are created by the interactions of residents and institutions, which can be in conflict over the community's past, its prevailing political ideology, and pathways for community action. Disasters are called into existence by the naming of an event and the assigning of responsibility for blame and recovery. In April of 1997, , , experienced a flood that caused extensive damage to the homes and lives of most of its residents, altering communication processes and heightening group conflicts. Two groups emerged: “movers” are members of a dominant coalition; “shakers” are among their challengers. The groups differ most in their level of voice, that is, access to the means of participation in public discussion and decision‐making.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0270.027
Scholarly communication0.0110.010
Open science0.0010.011
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations13
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSouthern Communication JournalSame topicRhetoric and Communication StudiesFrench-language works237,207