Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on his experience as co-founder and core organizer of Black Lives Matter Toronto (BLMTO), dancer and choreographer Rodney Diverlus dissects the choreographic elements of a new era of Black resistance. Here, he focuses on the racial politics of assembly as it relates to Black liberation struggles both historically and in a post-Trayvon Martin present. Black-centric direct action is deliberate about its use of space and intentional about the physical interventions made by Black bodies in that space. This article examines BLMTO’s protest tactics—including gestures like ‘Hands up, Don’t shoot’ and the Black power fist, physicalized and embodied chants, and the deliberate disruption of public spaces—as models for effective and informed activism. It examines these movements as a continued lineage of successful choreographies of Black political assembly. Diverlus explores André Lepecki’s concept of choreopolicing (whereby the police assert control of protestors) and positions it in stark contrast to Black-centric politichoreography, which uses distinct Black protest movement vocabularies to resist the state apparatus and police violence. Diverlus looks at BLMTO’s use of these gestures and choreographed direct actions as both narrative symbols and embodied rallying points to bring together a raging community. Through these tactics, BLMTO poses and simultaneously answers the question: whose streets? BLMTO uses Black bodies—the very bodies marginalized and discarded by the state—as sites of power that unapologetically challenge not only the ownership of public space, but also the control of Black bodies in that 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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".