Digital Identity Construction Of Environmental Movements Through Media Access: The Anti-Nuclear Movement In Belgium And The Anti-Pipeline Movement In Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on fieldwork (interviews and web site content analysis) realized in Belgium and in Canada about two contrasted environmental controversies, this paper analyzes the different ways environmental activists exploit digital technologies and interact with journalists and communication professionals in order to build their image in the public sphere so as to gain and to keep access to the public sphere. Our theoretical frame combines insights from social movements (Gamson 1991, Polletta and Jasper 2001, Treré 2012) and digital communication studies (Broustau 2014, Yates 2015) in order to investigate the link between communication strategies in the digital era and processes of identity construction among social movements. This frame led us to build analytical tools, an interviews grid and a grid of Web content analysis, in order to study two cases: the nuclear phasing-out controversies in Belgium (from 2013 to 2019) and the controversies surrounding the Energie-Est pipeline project in Canada (from 2014 to 2018). Interviews with activists, journalists and communication professionals in the environmental field were confronted with the analysis of the websites and social medias of environmental activists and institutions. The results of this comparative empirical work point out the dilemma of anti-system communication strategies versus the search for media legitimacy and authority. We discuss these results in light of the controversies that oppose social movement experts (Harlow 2012, Diani 2013) and media sociologists (Gerbaudo and Treré 2015) stating that the use of social network tools by social movement organizations (SMO) transform the very nature of social movements.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".