MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396611376 · doi:10.1080/14742837.2024.2349573

Explaining the impact of citizens’ initiatives on social movements: insights from the Spanish housing movement

2024· article· en· W4396611376 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

VenueSocial movement studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPopulism, Right-Wing Movements
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersEuropean Research Council
KeywordsSocial movementDemocracyDirect actionTransformative learningPoliticsArgument (complex analysis)Political scienceLegislatureCraftPolitical economyDirect democracySociologyAction (physics)Opportunity structuresPublic administrationPublic relationsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How do instruments of direct democracy affect the social movement organisations that sponsor them? Drawing on social movement studies and direct democracy research, we argue that direct democracy has a transformative effect on its sponsors because it triggers a triple process of movement building, learning, and bargaining with political elites. This triple process sets in motion enduring trends within the organisation that has undertaken the burden of promoting the initiative. We illustrate this argument with the case of a people’s legislative initiative (a non-binding mechanism of direct democracy) organised by a housing rights organisation between 2011 and 2013 to counter the eviction crisis in Spain. This initiative did not result in the reform that activists demanded. Nevertheless, it contributed to consolidating the sponsor organisation, innovating its repertoire of action, and broadening its strategic options.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.299 · 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