MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389165053 · doi:10.47061/jasc.v3i2.6146

Nurturing Activism

2023· article· en· W4389165053 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Awareness-Based Systems Change · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPower (physics)IdeologySociologyField (mathematics)Social groupAffect (linguistics)Social psychologySocial activismGender studiesEpistemologyPolitical scienceSocial sciencePsychologyPoliticsLawCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article will explore evolving thoughts on how the social field can be an effective lens to address relational tensions within activist groups. Gobby (2020) defines relational tensions as the ideological and social tensions that emerge in an activist group due to power inequalities, which are significant internal barriers for these groups to achieve their goals. I will draw on social movement literature and Scharmer’s (2018) concept of social fields to show how the source conditions of the various individuals that make up these groups affect the quality of how they relate to each other, which give birth to practices and results that either align with their values or create conflictual tensions that can hold these groups back. Through a personal case study, I intend to show how, by shifting an activist group's social field towards one that places relationality at the forefront, these groups can improve how they work together and ultimately avoid breaking apart.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.370
Threshold uncertainty score0.676

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.358
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.140 · 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