Follower Status: Forms and Strategies of Mass Movements toward Controversial Social Concepts of Protest Activism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate and analyze the status of the followers who attended the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) in 2005–2009; the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) in 2006–2010; and the People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) in 2013-2014 under their thinking that the right to freedom of peaceful assembly is a basic human right. As characterized by the model of Hersey and Blanchard, was guided by the leaders’ status. The concept of followership characteristics and styles were followed and compared. Adapting the 24-item Follower Creative Thinking on Participating Protest Rally (FCTPPR) in four scales through 600 followers were assessed. The FCTPPR is valid and reliable. It was found that Thai-style followers are thought leaders with independence, and have the capital potential within society. Simply put, the masses were ready for themselves and didn't intend to advance or lead in supporting the rallying groups of followers. The followers' minds have been reflected in their thoughts on the leadership in the participating group and being followers of their leadership. Significant differences in the followers' perceptions of their four creative thinking abilities in attending the parts of the PAD, UDD, and PDRC mass movement rally protest groups were also found.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".