The recruitment functions of social ties: Weak and strong tie mobilization for 84 demonstrations in eight countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although recruitment is often studied by social movement scholars, the literature lacks an integrated account of what recruitment actually entails and there is disagreement about who the recruiters are (weak- or strong-tie contacts). This study develops a theoretical account of different recruitment “functions” that can be fulfilled by social ties and that enhance protest participation. Participants need to be informed about the protest event, many of them need to be persuaded before they join a demonstration, and most of them also want to have suitable company to attend the protest with. We expect that these three recruitment functions—information, persuasion, and company—are often fulfilled by the same social tie (homogeneous pattern). However, when this is not the case, we expect that strong ties become more important the closer one comes to actual participation (centripetal pattern). Drawing on individual-level information about more than 14,000 protesters, we find that these patterns are robust across 84 demonstrations in eight countries. Nevertheless, there are systematic differences across countries and across types of social movements. The centripetal recruitment pattern is significantly more apparent when people protest for socio-economic issues compared to when they participate in demonstrations on other, non-socio-economic issues.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".