Going Global and the World Social Forum: The Struggle for Justice Beyond the Nation-State
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past ten years beginning with the protests against the World Trade Organization in Seattle 1999 there has been an intense wave of international activism not unlike the political activism of the late 1960s. Unlike the 1960s, however, grassroots organizations, social movements, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and other civial society networks are forming large cross-border networks. They have launched international campaigns against neoliberal globalization, militarism, and war. Neoliberalism is an ideology that asserts that "free" markets, not states, should be the means by which most of society's resources are allocated. Those networks campaigning against neoliberalism and tis global effects, for example, privatization of public services, now have created their own political space, the World Social Forum (WSF). The WSF now attract up to 150,000 participants to its meetings and, along with, regional and local social forums, has spread to all continents. The WSF, among other things, initiated the global day of action against the Iraq War in February 2003 which attracted 12,000,000 people in 800 cities worldwide. My powerpoint presentation will address three questions: 1) Why has the shift to global political activism occurred?, 2) What is the World Social Form?, 3) Why has it grown to massive proportions? I will use as case studies two Canadian NGOs, the Council of Canadians and Alternatives, a Quebec based NGO, and an India based NGO, the National Campaign On Dalit Human Rights (formerly "untouchables") which has become part of an extensive global network taking the cause of the Dalits beyond India.
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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.062 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".