MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2506938487 · doi:10.1177/194277861600900102

Time, Space, and Rationality: Rethinking Political Action through the Example of Montreal's Student Spring

2016· article· en· W2506938487 on OpenAlexaffabout
Julie‐Anne Boudreau, Mathieu Labrie

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Geography · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Planning and Governance
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsIdeologyAction (physics)Social movementSpace (punctuation)SociologyState (computer science)RationalityPolitical communicationPolitical scienceMedia studiesPublic relationsSocial scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because of a changing relationship with time, space, and affect in a more urbanized world, political actions and social movement practices have transcended the modern, state-oriented logic of action. Following this claim, this paper questions a specifically urban way of acting politically. To answer this question, we need to begin by “looking” for politics in the kinds of places that political scientists generally overlook for political analysis. Understanding the urban logic of political action cannot come solely from an observation of political campaigns, ideologies, political organizations, or interviews with social movement leaders. Using the 2012 student strike in Montreal as our focus, we are taking a different analytical angle that focuses more closely on the personal experience of participation, the personal trajectories of the participating students and the effect of this intense mobilization. This research project uses biometric tools, spatial data and qualitative data to investigate political participation and its relation to the city space.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.274
Threshold uncertainty score0.551

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0160.030
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman GeographySame topicUrban Planning and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207