“We Must Work… Toward Justice in Action”: Grievances, Claims Making, and Spillover in the Idle No More Movement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Idle No More (INM) movement emerged in reaction to Bill C-45, the Canadian Jobs and Growth Act, in November 2012, inspiring a new wave of activism. Central to the movement’s grievances are Indigenous resistance and environmental justice (EJ), positioning INM’s activities against neo-colonialism, exploitation, and environmental degradation. We build upon existing EJ movements, Indigenous Peoples/Indigenous Environmental Justice (IEJ) movements, and social movement spillover, grievance, and claims making literatures to understand the role of shared movement narratives in encouraging mobilization. INM relies on social media to educate members and construct and communicate movement goals and actions. Analyzing 6 months of Facebook comments, reflecting the INM movement’s emergence period, we argue that INM activists employ structural grievances embedded in previous EJ and Indigenous resistance movements, combined with emerging (incidental) grievances to articulate shared claims that address inequality and justice, appealing to a range of potential supporters. We offer an analysis of the emergent INM movement to consider the active intersection of EJ, Indigenous Peoples, and IEJ movements to mobilize and sustain movement activities in spite of Bill C-45’s passage.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".