MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2269271465

Exploring Dialogic Social Change

2010· article· en· W2269271465 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Karen Greiner

Bibliographic record

VenueOhioLink ETD Center (Ohio Library and Information Network) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYork University
KeywordsDialogicSociologyEpistemologyPedagogy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dissertation explores a model of social change which I have labeled "dialogic."Each of the three cases I have chosen for this study has been included because I believe that the design of each intervention departs significantly and creatively from traditional, less Other-oriented, social change efforts.Dialogic social change begins with the assumption that human beings cannot be developed, modernized, or empowered by external parties.Instead, this conception of change is guided by the assumption that individuals are autonomous, trustworthy beings who are capable of deciding when to engage with new ideas and opportunities for action.First, I analyze the strategic communication of the "Billionaires for Bush," a group of playful and ironic protesters, most active in New York City preceding the 2004 U.S. Presidential election.In this case I focus on the ability of the Billionaires to creatively inspire and invite civic participation, which resulted in the self-organization of more than 70 "spin off" Billionaires for Bush chapters.The second case I examine is "Scenarios from Africa," an HIV/AIDS-related communication process in Senegal centered on a script writing contest for young people implemented voluntarily by a vast network of community based organizations.I discuss how the contest promotes youth agency in Senegal, allowing contest participants to shift from their traditional role as targets of information campaigns to instead become creators of HIV prevention content.Finally, I present the "invitational" Cultura Ciudadana (civic culture) communication strategy employed by Antanas Mockus, the former mayor of Professors at New York University who believed in me, got me excited about research and assured me that I had "what it takes" to pursue a doctorate.I thank Arvind Singhal for proving that it is possible to write academic books that have photos, drawings and stories.I also thank him for a well timed "Mother Teresa story," from which I learned that there is a difference between being anti-war and being pro-peace.I am very grateful to Bill Rawlins for his support and encouragement, and especially for writing "Rock on!" in the margins of my earliest papers as a Doctoral student.His love of dialogic theory was contagious and I am grateful to him for exposing me to the writings of Martin Buber, Mikhail Bakhtin and Gregory Bateson.I thank Rafael Obregon for introducing me to two new worlds; Colombia and the world of Latin American communication theory.Rafael has been a constant supporter and a source of inspiration through his work and writing on social change.I thank Greg Shepherd for introducing me to the Pragmatists and for fanning the flames of my belief in community and in meliorism.I also appreciate the careful attention Greg paid to my writing and the word choices I have made; his feedback and encouragement led to much improved and expanded chapters.I thank Devika Chawla who has more-than-generously supported and mentored me since my first year at Ohio University.Devika has helped me become a better writer and she has taught me just about everything I currently know about academic life.Devika Chawla and Ani Ruhil have been a constant source of vi support, guidance, and (no small detail), hot and delicious meals when I most needed them.I am extremely grateful to various individuals and institutions on the Ohio

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)0.012
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0160.050
Scholarly communication0.0170.021
Open science0.0030.014
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.246
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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOhioLink ETD Center (Ohio Library and Information Network)Same topicCounseling, Therapy, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207