Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing upon the work of McAdam, Tarrow, and Tilly, Lefebvre, and others, we argue that analysis of political contention dynamics can benefit from attention to the spatial constitution and context of social, political, and economic processes, and the ways in which these processes are spatially experienced and contested. We contend that spatial processes are inseparable from, and constitutive of, social processes. Starting from the central geographic concepts of space, place, and scale, we discuss how a spatial perspective can produce more illuminating understandings of how people perceive, shape, and act upon grievances and opportunities. We demonstrate the utility of a spatial perspective through an examination of ways in which space is implicated in the operation of several mechanisms identified by McAdam, Tarrow, and Tilly. Finally, we introduce the papers included in this special issue on space and contentious politics, discussing the ways each author finds place, space, and scale to be bound up in the dynamics of political contention.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it