In search of solidarity : international solidarity work between Canada and South Africa 1975-2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis provides an account of the work of Canadian organizations that took part in the global anti-apartheid movement and then continued political advocacy work in South Africa post-1994. My central research question is: What explains the rise and fall of international solidarity movements? I answer this question by exploring the factors that allowed the Canadian anti-apartheid network to grow into an international solidarity movement and explaining how a change in these factors sent the network into a period of decline post-1994. I use two organizations, the United Church of Canada and CUSO, as case studies for my analysis. I argue that four factors were behind the growth of the Canadian solidarity network: the presence of large CSOs in Canada willing to become involved in solidarity work, the presence of radical spaces in these organizations from which activists could advocate for and carry out solidarity work, the frame resonance of the apartheid issue in Canada and the political incentives the apartheid state provided for South African activists to encourage Northern support. Post-1994 all of these factors shifted in ways that restricted the continuation of international solidarity work with South Africa. Accordingly I argue that the decline of the Canadian network was driven in part by specific South African factors, but was also connected to a more general stifling of the activist work of progressive Canadian CSOs over the 1990s. This reduction of capacity was driven by the ascent of neo-liberal policy in Canada and worldwide. Using examples from a wide swath of cases I outline this process and explain how all four factors drove the growth and decline of Canadian solidarity work towards South Africa.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".