MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4300181778 · doi:10.46692/9781447329435.001

Introduction: past tents, present tents: on the importance of studying protest camps

2017· other· en· W4300181778 on OpenAlexaff
Gavin Brown, Anna Feigenbaum, Fabian Frenzel, Patrick McCurdy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCommunism, Protests, Social Movements
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer securityHistoryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Present tents: Protest camps in the contemporary world This book examines protest camps as a key expression of contemporary social movement politics. From Tahrir Square to Syntagma Square, from Wall Street to the London Stock Exchange, 2011 was not just the year of the protester, but also the year of the protest camp. From the squares of Spain to the streets of Hong Kong, protest camps are a tactic used around the world. Though their history is much longer, since 2011, protest camps have gained prominence in waves of contentious politics, deployed by movements with a wide array of demands for social change. Through a series of international and interdisciplinary case studies, this book focuses on protest camps as unique organisational forms that transcend particular social movements’ contexts. Whether erected in a park in Istanbul or a street in Mexico City, the significance of political encampments rests in their position as distinctive material and mediated spaces where people come together to imagine alternative worlds and articulate contentious politics, often in confrontation with the state. Despite protest camps’ increasing role as an organisational form of protest, little scholarship has considered protest camps as their own domain of enquiry. Some of the earliest scholarship on protest camps tended to view camps as either merely functional to the specific movements in which they were created, or saw them as organisational forms with little significance for the aims and objectives of social movements (McKay, 1998; Duncombe, 2002; Crossley, 2003; Chesters and Welsh, 2004; Della Porta et al, 2006; Pickerill and Chatterton, 2006; Brodkin, 2007). In either case, the protest camp is regarded as just one site among many in the context of studying a specific social movement, and often grouped together with other social movement tactics such as street parties, demonstrations, assemblies and direct actions. In recent years, more scholarship on protest camps has appeared, mainly driven by reflections on the Arab Spring (Gerbaudo, 2012; Ramadan, 2013), 15M (Castañeda, 2012), and Occupy (Juris, 2012; Kidd, 2014; Pickerill and Krinsky, 2012), either individually, or as linked phenomena (Feigenbaum et al, 2013; Frenzel et al, 2014). There has also been work that draws comparisons between the strategic and tactical functions of past and present protest camps (Leidinger, 2011; 2015).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.275 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCommunism, Protests, Social MovementsFrench-language works237,207