Comparing Strategy and Ethicality in Contemporary Canadian Protests: Case Study Analysis of the 2019 Climate March and Wet’suwet’en Blockades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As corporations and nation-states fail to change for the sake of the climate crisis, conventional tools for raising concerns must be analysed to understand their contemporary efficacy. This includes protest and militancy which have had an everchanging perception and role in Canadian democracy. The 2019 Fridays for Future climate march and the Wet’suwet’en blockades were analysed to develop insights into the contemporary strategies being used, their perception in media, the state, and the grander public, and if these protests were successful. A historical review of protest was conducted to inform how strategies, actors, and perceptions have changed over time. Three analytical tools were used to dissect the cases: a charmed circle analysis, a test of the democratic standard, and if there were ‘substantial achievements.’ The analysis found that the Fridays for Future march was charmed fitting within the democratic ideal of a liberal protest. The Wet’suwet’en blockades were outside the confines of the charmed circle making it a militant protest, but the democratic standard found the protest to be democratically justified, nonetheless. Both protests were mostly unsuccessful on a grander scale but had smaller successes in popularizing their respective movements. Ultimately, there is still a need to develop protest strategy to create the necessary changes for climate equity as the state’s effectiveness at undermining these movements has grown substantially over time.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".