Image Protest Activism Media Journalism Cultural Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
cf.ac.uk/jomec/jomecjournal/4-november2013/Pantti_Editorial.pdf This editorial introduces the articles of the special issue Image/Protest. It explains that the articles in the issue consider the production and reproduction of images of protest, their strategic use by various actors, their representation to wider audiences through various media channels, and their implications in the public realm. These contributions offer a collection of conceptual and analytical perspectives through which to analyse images related to protest, including ethnographic observation, semiotic analysis, historical/genre analysis and content analysis. The empirical focus of this issue includes different practices of image activism or representation of protest in the media as case studies: demonstrations in the West Bank, protests against the ban of public nudity in San Francisco, protests around the Canadian tar sands, street battles in Copenhagen over the forced eviction of Iraqi asylum seekers, online video activism on YouTube, and the visual coverage of Syrian conflict in the mainstream media outlets. The issue offers a wide perspective on the complex media environment in which contemporary protest is made visible, as well as on the diversified media tactics of activists which combine ‘new’ and ‘old ’ media.
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.002 |
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".