The global spread of community organizing: how 'Alinsky-style' community organizing travelled to Australia and what we learnt?
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
Community organizing refers to a particular way of working in public life that aims to enhance the capacity of community leaders to act for the common good in collaboration across civil society. In the last two decades, this practice, founded in the United States, has spread to Germany, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia. This article develops a definition of community organizing, then explores the history of the practice. The article focuses on the translation of community organizing to Australia and the development of the Sydney Alliance. The article identifies a series of ‘key factors’ that helped create a successful adaptation of community organizing ‘universals’ to another country. In doing so the article applies several frameworks developed in Power in Coalition to help understand the successes and challenges that the Sydney Alliance has endured ( Tattersall (2010) Power in Coalition: Strategies for Strong Unions and Social Change, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY). The author has a distinctive perspective, as she was the founder of the Sydney Alliance as well as the author of Power in Coalition. The article does not pretend to provide ‘objective’, disinterested observation, but is presented from the vantage point of active participant observation.
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 | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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