Bibliographic record
Abstract
When we think about protest, we often associate it with the notion of organized social movements, but studying organized movements only captures a small part of the realities of social protest.Dissent often takes alternative forms, and can be studied from myriad angles.The articles in this issue offer different perspectives on social protest, examining the roles of small activist collectives, organized policing efforts, local private politics, digital communities, and revolutionary vanguards in instances of collective action and political behavior.Matthew Hayes opens this issue with his article "Never Mind the Ballots: The Edible Ballot Society and the Performance of Citizenship."In the article, Hayes examines an unusual instance of carnivalesque, humorous social protest, in which an anarchist collective prepared elaborate meals from their ballot papers and publicly ate them in order to reframe the Canadian state as an ongoing political project with pretensions to social control.Hayes's piece fuses the study of social movements with the study of performance to provide critical insights into the "culture-jamming" practices of contemporary activism.Binoy Kampmark examines the question of social control, offering a revealing and in-depth analysis of the social control mechanisms that were in place at the Brisbane G20 in 2014.In "Shutting Down Protest: Policing, International Summitry, and the G20 Experiment in Brisbane," he offers an enlightening assessment of social control and its role in instances of protest.Kampmark explains how public order at the Brisbane summit was achieved at the expense of public dissent.By incorporating protest within a carefully coordinated summit plan, Kampmark argues, policing efforts were able to neuter rather than suppress dissent.Matthew Ogilvie offers a shift of focus from the international to the local.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".