MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410825134 · doi:10.1080/14608944.2025.2505477

Memeing war: the use of humor for hope, resistance, and forging the nation

2025· article· en· W4410825134 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

VenueNational Identities · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDigital Storytelling and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResistance (ecology)ForgingPolitical scienceGender studiesSociologyEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much like wars waged in real life on battlefronts, memes battle online for discursive supremacy. Memes were shaping online narratives in the early months of the massive, renewed Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. These memes provide hope, develop solidarity, and reinforce a Ukrainian national identity in a context where citizens fight for their very survival. Memes, we argue, enable assailed citizens to call upon a reinvigorated nationalism to resist invading forces. The memes ridicule the enemy, allay fear of the invading foe and affirm that Ukrainians are not Russian. The disparagement of Russians thus encourages the people of Ukraine to hold steadfastly against the invaders as they refuse to be incorporated into a ‘Russian land’ against their will. Memes are central to the nation and nationalism, seeking to shape the outcome of the war to ensure the continued existence of the Ukrainian state and a Ukrainian nation through the mobilization of nationalism using pictures and words shared online.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score0.645

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.268 · 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