MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412622407 · doi:10.1080/14672715.2025.2531453

We are Each Other’s Democracy: The Emergence of New Political Subjectivities and Solidarities during the Anti-Martial Law Protests in South Korea

2025· article· en· W4412622407 on OpenAlexaff
Yoonkyung Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Asian Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVietnamese History and Culture Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMartial lawPoliticsDemocracyPolitical scienceLawPolitical economyGender studiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Against former President Yoon Suk-yeol’s sudden declaration of martial law in December 2024, South Korean citizens organized “light stick protests,” which signify the wide involvement of a younger generation and their embrace of K-pop culture as a medium for political expression. This analysis concerns how young women in their twenties and thirties formed new political subjectivies and how they emerged as a central node for intersectional solidarity of diverse marginalized groups, including queer citizens, people with disabilities, precarious workers, and aging farmers. To address these questions, this study examines the political dynamics that undergirded the formation of new political actors and the diversified arenas of communications and associations that connected them, inter-generationally and inter-sectionally. This analysis shows that diverse new political subjectivities and solidarities emerged as a collective critique of the dominant order of masculine power, heteronormativity, and neoliberal illiberalism, which South Korea’s democracy has consistently failed to address during its process of democratic backsliding.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0000.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Asian StudiesSame topicVietnamese History and Culture StudiesFrench-language works237,207