FCJ-197 Entanglements with Media and Technologies in the Occupy Movement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay explores the paradox of activists using corporate-owned platforms-the 'master's tools' (Lorde, 1984)-in the context of the Occupy Wall Street movement.Grounded in findings from interviews with 30 women activists from eight North American Occupy sites, this essay reveals the frictions that result from the entangled paradox between philosophies embedded within technologies and activists' philosophies.We document entanglements between corporate platforms and radical democratic ideals, and subsequent frictions between activists' ideals and more pragmatic, DIY practices.We also investigate frictions between aspirations of openness, and the realities of surveillance and infiltration by the police state.We examine entanglements through the theoretical lenses of 'connective labor' (Boler et al, 2014), 'veillance' (Mann, 2004), and the 'master's tools' (Lorde, 1984), and lay the groundwork for 'queering the binary of individuals and groups' (Barad, 2012) and recognising the non-linear, dynamic relations of social movements.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".