Coordinating Action: NGOs and Grassroots Groups Challenging Canadian Resource Extraction Abroad
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Research on the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in collective action predicts they will not interact with grassroots groups, citing partnerships with corporations and states, the apolitical delivery of social services and accountability towards donors as disconnecting professionalized actors from volunteer-based grassroots groups. Using interviews with core activists in the movement confronting Canadian resource extraction abroad, I depart from this approach by investigating the mechanisms, or threads, that bind organizations into coordinated action. I find that NGOs and grassroots groups coordinate as a result of: shared values and environmental justice frames; the allocation of resources; and engagement in complimentary forms of advocacy driven by a division of labour and a diversity of tactics. My research develops existing approaches to theorizing coordinated action and invites scholarship on NGOization to include the conceptual toolkit provided by social movement theories to better account for NGO–grassroots dynamics.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.051 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".