Gezi Assemblages: Embodied Encounters in the Making of an Alternative Space
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
The article aspires to make a claim for the potential of the Deleuze-Guattarian concept of assemblage (agencement) to account for the Occupy Movements in general and 2013 Turkey Gezi Movement in particular. Throughout the article, it is claimed that the concept of agencement provides us with useful tools to elucidate the constitution of a new dissident community in Gezi Park and the subsequent park assemblies. Special emphasis will be put on the capacity of the concept to account for the embodied and embedded nature of the Gezi Movement, an argument further supported by data coming from participatory observations throughout different phases of the mobilization, 23 in depth interviews with activists from different political backgrounds and minutes of the park assemblies. Although the concept of assemblage has started to be used in the analysis of social movements (Bennett, 2005; Chesters & Welsh, 2006; Lockie 2004; McFarlane, 2009; Rodriguez-Giralt, 2011, 2015; Rodriguez-Giralt & Marrero-Guillamón,2018), not much emphasis is given to the concepts of embodiment and body in assemblages. This article aspires to contribute to the literature by first underlining the importance of embodiment in the Gezi movement and second elucidating it with respect to the concept of body in the original use of the term of assemblage by Deleuze and Guattari (1980).
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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