MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159388007 · doi:10.1177/016146812112300509

Social Media Utilization in Discourse Coalitions: The Opt-Out Movement in Ohio

2021· article· en· W3159388007 on OpenAlexaff
Michael P. Evans, Andrew Saultz, Sue Winton

Bibliographic record

VenueTeachers College Record The Voice of Scholarship in Education · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial mediaPublic relationsIdeologyPoliticsSociologySocial movementPublicationPublishingEmpirical evidenceQualitative researchEmpirical researchPolitical scienceMedia studiesSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background While journalists claim social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter have been central to the growth of the opt-out movement, there is a lack of empirical research that examines its use by participants. We address this gap by highlighting findings related to the usage of social media by opt-out participants in Ohio. Purpose This study examines how the ideologically diverse participants in the Ohio opt-out movement utilized social media to support their activism. Subjects 183 Ohioans who opted their child(ren) out during the 2014–15 academic year completed a survey about their reasons for opting out. Fifteen of the survey respondents were also interviewed. Research Design This mixed methods study uses both survey data and qualitative interviews as sources of evidence. Results The findings show participants utilized social media for networking, knowledge acquisition, knowledge mobilization, and support. Social media was a valuable tool for coordinating the efforts of participants. Conclusions This study demonstrates how social media supported the development of a discourse coalition by enabling connections among actors with diverse political and philosophical beliefs and extending valuable networking opportunities across district and state lines.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTeachers College Record The Voice of Scholarship in EducationSame topicSocial Media and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207