MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095762604 · doi:10.1111/cars.12305

“Say It Loud, Say It Clear…”: Concerting Solidarity in the Canadian Refugees Welcome Movement (2015–2016)

2020· article· en· W3095762604 on OpenAlexaffabout
Maria Bakardjieva

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolidarityGrassrootsRefugeeCollective actionSocial movementContext (archaeology)SociologyPolitical scienceGender studiesPoliticsMedia studiesLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Refugees Welcome Movement (2015-2016) was one of the most sizeable, visible, and effective instances of collective action in recent Canadian history. It had a nationwide scope and grassroots initiation. It comprised a wide variety of participants and actively employed social media in its constitution. This article reports the results of a multimethod case study that seeks to explain how collective action frames emerged in the context of the Canadian Refugees Welcome Movement; which actors were involved in their articulation; and how they generated a following, collective action and humanitarian and political effect. The focus is on the discursive processes of construction of solidarity across difference as they unfolded in the social media environment. The Facebook event pages calling for rallies in support of Syrian refugees, it argues, served as a discursive space that helped transform the moral shock experienced by members of distinct moral communities into a process of concerting of voices and construction of solidarity and collective action frames across differences.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.822

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0410.026
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologieSame topicMigration, Refugees, and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207