Introduction to the Special Issue: Exploring the Policy–Mobilization Nexus: How Policies and Mobilizations Shape One Another
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Although public policies and social mobilizations often shape one another, policy studies and social movement studies have focused on distinct dimensions of the “policy–mobilization nexus.” Such segmented perspectives generate blind spots and partial accounts of both the policy process and social mobilization dynamics. This special issue unpacks the policy–mobilization nexus and brings together papers that analyze the interactions between public policy and protest in different policy domains (family, housing, education, and health) in four countries (Chile, Quebec, Spain, and the United States). It makes three contributions. First, it stresses the contentious nature of the policy‐making process and shows that many social actors combine disruptive and conciliatory modes of action. Second, it challenges standard arguments according to which social movements shape the policy process only indirectly, through agenda‐setting. Finally, it takes temporal dynamics seriously and stresses the need to treat policies not as an output or outcome but as a process with no clear starting and end points.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.007 |
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".