MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412700439 · doi:10.1093/sf/soaf111

Legislative processes, nonstate actors, and political repression: the case of human rights NGOs in Israel

2025· article· en· W4412700439 on OpenAlex
Ina Filkobski, Eran Shor

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

VenueSocial Forces · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Conflict and Governance
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislaturePoliticsPolitical scienceHuman rightsPsychological repressionPolitical repressionPolitical economyPublic administrationLawSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Previous research on legislation that targets nongovernmental organizations working on human rights issues (HR NGOs) has mostly focused on state actors in authoritarian regimes. In this study, we theorize the role of nonstate actors in political repression in a relatively more democratic setting, that of Israel. We conducted a systematic content analysis of thousands of legal documents, parliamentary archives, and media reports, complementing these with ethnographic work in several NGOs and in-depth interviews with NGO staffers. In contrast with theoretical views that see legislative processes as merely window dressing, we found that the Israeli legislative process has had a profound impact on Israeli HR NGOs, entailing a significant loss of public and political support, legitimacy, and scarce resources. We argue that scholars of political repression must pay greater attention to the crucial role played by nonstate actors in advancing and enforcing repressive legislation and to the entire legislative process—rather than only its formal legal results.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.311
Threshold uncertainty score0.932

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.358 · 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