“How to get from here to there?” – Alternative knowledge production, mobilization, and counter-hegemonic globalization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carroll, William K. 2016. Expose, oppose, propose: alternative policy groups and the struggle for global justice. London: Zed Books. ISBN 978-1-78360-603-0. Paperback: 22.99 GBP. / Halifax: Fernwood. ISBN 978-1-55266-834-4. Paperback: 25.00 CAD. Pages: 224. The organic crisis of hegemonic neoliberal globalization, manifested in aggravated uneven development condensed with ecological unsustainability, requires systemic transformation towards justice globalism. William Carroll’s distinguished 4-year research project integrates network analysis with qualitative interviewing to depict a rich picture of the contribution of counter-hegemonic knowledge production and mobilisation by transnational alternative policy groups (TAPGs) to such an emancipatory alternative future. Grounded in thorough data analysis, dialogue between neo-Gramscian methodology, which recognizes the structure/agency dialectic, and the empirical, makes this book an indispensable resource for proponents of global justice as it overcomes the disempowering voluntaristic localism and anti-statism that underlies much of both mainstream and critical approaches to “progressive” social transformation.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".