Thinking of anti-incineration protests in strategic action fields: three case studies in mainland China
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
Local protests against municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration have become intractable problems in metropolitan areas worldwide. Based on the theory of strategic action fields, we adopt a comprehensive perspective to understand how controversies surrounding MSW incineration exert influence over the dominant order within the field. Adopting a qualitative research method, we conducted field research in three Chinese cities where proposals for incineration plants have aroused disputes between different categories of actors. The collected empirical data consist of 42 semi-structured interviews and materials provided by interviewees. By examining the dynamic process of protests between challengers and incumbents, we found that skilled actors fight over a meso-level social order – the waste disposal industry and waste management policies – through competition and cooperation. We also found a mix of instrumental and existential motivations in their involvement in the conflict. Our findings deepens understanding of contentions regarding waste management, thereby enriching the existing literature. In a broader sense, our analysis contributes to the discussion of how actors occupying different positions compete for dominance in a specific field and can succeed, under certain circumstances, in shaping social action.
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 | 0.000 | 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