MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953114798 · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2019.1631376

Making the Syntagma Square protests visible. Cultures of participation and activists’ communication in Greek anti-austerity protests

2019· article· en· W2953114798 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alice Mattoni

Bibliographic record

VenueInformation Communication & Society · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsContext (archaeology)VisibilityAusteritySocial movementSociologyMovement (music)Social mediaConstruct (python library)Media studiesExplanatory powerPower (physics)Public relationsPolitical scienceEpistemologyPoliticsAestheticsHistoryComputer scienceLawGeographyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.407
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInformation Communication & SocietySame topicSocial Media and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207