Radical movement-parties, political change and the epistemology of elections: evidence from Lebanon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing literature seeks to bring agency into the study of movement-parties (M-Ps).Yet studies pay little attention to radical M-Ps which confront acute dilemmas when deciding to contest parliamentary elections in systems they deem illegitimate.This article problematizes radical M-Ps' entry in elections and the meaning they attribute to the role and function of electionstheir epistemology of elections.We examine three M-Ps -Beirut Madinati, LiHaqqi, and Muwatinun wa Muwatinat fi Dawla.We demonstrate that radical M-Ps with a coherent strategy for political change, one that includes an epistemology of elections, are more likely to mitigate and survive electoral dilemmas when entering elections.Radical M-Ps lacking such a strategy risk fragmentation and potential dissolution.Methodologically, we chose Lebanon because 1) during the period under study, it is a democracy and, consequently, a relevant case study for theories of party formation; and 2) it offers a controlled comparison of M-Ps in elections.Moreover, all three M-Ps emerged during a similar time-period, with similar social bases, and, at least originally, radical positions.Research is based on participation in, and observation of, protests and elections between 2011 and 2022, as well as primary and secondary sources.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".