Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1974, a collective of Surinamese migrants in the Netherlands took to squatting in an effort to break out of their deplorable housing situation. When faced with evictions, the squatters employed a variety of protest tactics, ranging from nonviolent marches and sit-ins to anti-capitalist songs and the forging of ties with the Dutch new left. This article examines the protest repertoire employed by these ‘Bijlmer squatters’—named after the neighbourhood in which they occupied a flat—and analyzes through which tactics this collective managed to increase its political clout in the face of exploitation and political voicelessness. The article does so by building on recent reinterpretations of Antonio Gramsci’s notion of political voicelessness, or ‘subalternity,’ and by bringing together developments in global history, history from below and social movement studies. After examining how the squatters adapted civil rights-style nonviolent tactics in their dealings with Dutch officials, the article scrutinizes the four types of solidarity that the squatters fostered behind the front line. The article concludes that the squatters’ locally specific reconfiguration of globally circulating tactics, combined with their efforts to construct political alliances, helped the movement in gaining political agency, even if the squatters’ situation was still largely determined by Dutch political ruling classes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".