Future tents: protest camps and social movement organisation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction This book has taken a journey through sites of protest across the world, attempting to understand better the place-based politics expressed in protest camps and related forms of occupation-based politics. The case studies in this book were organised into three sections that allowed exploration of some of the differing processes through which it is possible to discuss protest camps and their infrastructures. Through the three sections of the book, several connecting themes have been identified and the purpose of this conclusion is to draw these themes together, both to highlight the contribution this volume makes, and also to identify the places where future research efforts need to be directed. Diversity and locality A key insight from this volume is indeed the diversity of the protest camp as a form of social movement tactic. While deployed as a tactic across the globe, protest camping and the use of place-based actions differ significantly. The difference is represented first of all in the protests themselves: ranging from specific campaigns and educational functions (see Chapter Twenty-one by Crane) to broad social upheaval with revolutionary aspirations or character and consequences (see Shevtsova (Chapter Fourteen); Yaka and Karakayali (Chapter Four); and Wang et al (Chapter Seven)), tackling issues ranging from environmental protests (see Russell et al (Chapter Nine)), to housing (see Gordon (Chapter Thirteen); Arruda (Chapter Eighteen); Rollmann and Frenzel (Chapter Nineteen)), austerity (see Kavada and Dimitriou (Chapter Five); Halvorsen (Chapter Ten); and Gerbaudo (Chapter Six)), indigenous rights (see Barker and Ross (Chapter Twelve); and Thompson (Chapter Eleven)), refugee rights (see English (Chapter Twenty); Pascucci (Chapter Seventeen); and Rubing (Chapter Three)) and corruption (see Davies (Chapter Fifteen)). While prior scholarship has often focused on protest camps within the domain of environmental politics, as this volume makes clear, the tactic of protest camp has been, and continues to be, deployed across a range of issues and political ideologies. Diversity is further reflected in how protest camps are developed; how and where they are deployed; and, how they react to and incorporate their social, political, cultural and material environment(s). While protest camps often bring very different protesters together and allow them to converge, the chapters have shown that camps look different in different countries, and mobilise different cultural and political symbols.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 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".