Unraveling the Radical Flank Effect: The Role of Moderate Organizations in the Face of Radical Flank Violence
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Why do moderate social movement organizations sometimes benefit from or avoid the negative effects of radical flank violence, while in other cases, they suffer strategic setbacks due to such extremism? Scholars have diverged in their conclusions regarding the impact of radical flank actions on more moderate organizations, a phenomenon known as the Radical Flank Effect (RFE). Some argue that radical elements within a movement can inadvertently boost the credibility and support for moderate groups by offering a contrast. Others believe that violence can tarnish the movement’s overall image as extremist, negatively impacting moderates. I propose that these varying conclusions stem partly from a lack of focus on the agency of moderate organizations in managing the extent to which radical factions harm their core interests. Examining the emergence of radical flank violence in the Quebec pro-independence movement during the 1960s and 1970s, this study investigates how and when moderates might enhance their distinction from radical elements and avoid detrimental associations. Relying on in-depth interviews with moderate leaders and archival research, the findings reveal that moderates can achieve this by publicly denouncing violence, avoiding interactions with radicals, and signal to state authorities intent to de-escalate the conflict.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it