Framing and movement outcomes: the #BringBackOurGirls movement
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is concerned with two questions: What are the master frames of the #BringBackOurGirls (#BBOG) movement? Why did the #BBOG attract significant global attention but achieve only moderate success in its goal – the release of all the school girls kidnapped by Boko Haram in Chibok in April 2014? The paper draws on primary and secondary data to argue that the international attention generated by #BBOG framing had historically specific resonance with local contestations for political power. The reverberation of the framing led to the alienation of key political actors in Nigeria who could have helped achieve the movement’s objective. The involvement of elite women in the movement played a major role in its global popularity but their political activities and loyalties before and during movement activities influenced local perceptions of the movement. The #BBOG’s rhetorical over-reliance on international support for achieving the movement’s objective was a strategic error. The #BBOG experience suggests the need for activists, particularly in the developing world, to recognise the constraints of their political context, work with local actors to achieve objectives, and publicise what ‘international support’ means for movement objectives.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it