Review: Direct action, deliberation and diffusion: Collective action after the WTO protests in Seattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Direct Action, Deliberation and Diffusion: Collective Action after the WTO protests in Seattle, Lesley Wood seeks to examine the micro-level interactions that influenced the diffusion of the cluster of tactics associated with the 1999 World Trade Organisation (WTO) protests in Seattle, drawing on ethnographic research spanning over several years (primarily between 1999-2002). To draw out these ideas, Wood conducts a comparative analysis, studying the strategies of six case organisations - three in New York City, three in Toronto - all of which had a history of disruptive protest and cited the Seattle demonstrations as having a “big influence on their activities” (p.3). In short, what was found was that while the New York organisations continued to experiment and utilise innovative tactics drawn from the Seattle Protests a year after the event, similar organisations in Toronto had largely abandoned them. This fundamental difference is traced back to the deliberative periods surrounding the potential adoption of Seattle tactics and strategies, and Wood sets out to inspect the factors that led to innovations being either implemented or discarded.
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".