Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics galvanized an outburst of sustained dissent that challenged the purported benefits of the Games and illuminated the deleterious effects that the mega-event exerted on marginalized populations. While the <italic>Vancouver Sun</italic> described protesters as a collection of “whiner and grumble-bunnies,” the reality was much more complicated. A wide array of activist groups and individuals—from grassroots anarchists to civil-liberties organizations to tenured professors in local universities—teamed up to express their dissent and to mobilize public opinion against the Vancouver Olympics. First Nations activists emerged as vital leaders, with “No Olympics on Stolen Native Land” a central rallying call. Activists organized around three main issues: indigenous rights, economic factors, and civil liberties. This chapter describes the major activist actions that occurred before and during the Olympics and charts the central strategies and tactics that activists adopted. The author argues that rather than a “movement of movements,” Vancouver highlights how anti-Olympics activism tends to take a “moment of movements” formation whereby a collection of activist groups, many of which had not previously worked together in coalition, converged in an effort to challenge the five-ring juggernaut that rolled into their city.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".