Making the Syntagma Square protests visible. Cultures of participation and activists’ communication in Greek anti-austerity protests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article addresses the following general question: how do movement cultures of participation shape activists’ communication strategies in the construction of visibility for their protests? While other scholars have tackled this issue at the theoretical level, in this article I address this enquiry through a concrete case study – the Greek Indignants (Aγανακτισμένοι) and, more specifically, the occupation of Syntagma square – and employing the lens of culture at the analytical level. Overall, the main theoretical claim behind this article is that we cannot consider movement cultures as a monolithic construct transversally affecting activists’ usages of both digital media and non-digital media. First, there is the need to understand social movements’ cultures as embedded into their broader context. Second, as the empirical analysis shows, movement cultures related to a specific type of practice – i.e. the one of participation – hold more explanatory power when we split them into different subdimensions to then understand how each of them intertwines with a specific aspect of activists’ communication strategies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".