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
Abstract Funding is critical for social movements. Our understanding of the relationship between social movements and funders has been shaped by broader theories used to understand movement dynamics. This review examines our changing understanding of the role of funding for movements, paying particular attention to the relative costs and benefits of funding from different groups of actors, such as constituents, foundations, governments, and corporations. While these groups provide critical resources to movements, they can also potentially alter movements by channeling them into less contentious actions and more bureaucratized forms. I explore three current debates in the area of social movement funding. First, current work assesses the relationships of funding, particularly how the interactions between funders and funded groups shape the types of actions in which social movements can engage. Second, social movement funding is embedded within a larger context, and current work is attempting to better understand the role of this context by engaging in comparative research. Finally, debates surrounding the rising importance of corporate funding for movements focus on how these new streams of revenue could help (or hinder) social movement activities.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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