Giving account of the voice-of-encounter: Anecdotes from the Occupy movement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article proposes a new sociological conception of voice as a voice-of-encounter and is grounded in anecdotes from the 2011 Occupy movement. Voice has occupied a place in sociological analysis insofar as it designates a space for collective representation, a capacity for collective resistance, and a strategy for collective action. But this article argues for the adoption of a new sociological conception of voice by theorizing a voice-of-encounter, broadly defined as a place-making capacity that spontaneously constructs inclusive and exclusive edges with pervious commitments to a predetermined form. The article uses, as an instrumental case study, personal encounters with the Occupy protest movement in 2011, for the purpose of elucidating voice’s affective distributions of edges in the context of new decentralized and social media based resistances. Methodologically, the article relies on inclusive and exclusive ‘encounters’ between the author and a local Occupy configuration out of which a social critique of voice is constructed. The purpose is not so much to offer a new theorization of the Occupy movement than to use the Occupy movement as an example of the effect decentralization is having on ‘giving voice’ in social movements. Thus, while voice, in the sociological literature, has been theorized as the capacity to give voice to an issue as well as to a collective and heretofore underrepresented minority, a capacity for ‘giving account of oneself’, this article takes a contrary yet complementary approach, claiming that a voice-of-encounter focuses on an orientation to possibilities of encounter across subjects rather than to the expression of any one specific subjectivity.
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 | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".