Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Canadian Muslims are increasingly active and prominent in political and circles. Still, little is known about the groups that claim to represent them; surprisingly few academic studies have been conducted about the community's political organization or activities. This study seeks to begin to fill this gap by examining the foreign policy interests of two leading Canadian Muslim groups-the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) and the Council American-Islamic Relations Canada (CAIR-CAN)-between 2000 and 2005.1These two organizations have been chosen for in-depth study because of their prominence: they have access to federal government ministers, politicians, and policymakers, and are prolific contributors to the national media. Debates about the groups' representativeness of what are very diverse Canadian Muslim communities continue-and will not be addressed here. As a result, this study does not claim that the interests of these organizations are indicative of those of Canadian Muslims in general (nor can we suggest that there are parallels with Muslim organizations in other western countries without further study).2 Nevertheless, because CIC and CAIR-CAN are taken by those in positions of power to be the spokespeople of Canadian Muslims, it is important to understand their political views.FOREIGN POLICY INTERESTSForeign policy is only one of several interests for CIC and CAIR-CAN. Both the president of CIC, Mohamed Elmasry, and the former chair of CAIR-CAN, Sheema Khan, suggested instead that their organizations were most concerned with Muslim integration within Canada. Elmasry stated the organization's objective as follows: The main project which drives CICeven before 9/11-is what we call smart integration...which is a happy medium between assimilation and isolation.3 CIC's efforts to influence Canadian foreign policy are considered to be one aspect of this overarching theme, as Elmasry argued:So when it comes to influencing foreign policy, it's part of the agenda of smart integration because foreign policy affects domestic policy and also Muslims cannot divorce themselves from the association of the world at large, especially [because] the Muslim world right now is victimized because of oil and because of [its] strategic position and because of the large market of 1.2 billion people.Similarly, CAIR-CAN's Khan suggested that advocacy foreign policy issues was on our low priority list, coming after media engagement, human rights and, more importantly...educating the Muslim community in Canada about Canadian institutions and how to become engaged-so what you would call integration.4 Khan explained:But [with] regards to getting involved in foreign affairs per se, we decided not to go there for a variety of reasons: one, lack of resources. And...really, we want to focus Muslims integrating here. I mean the other thing is...for so many years Muslim communities have been preoccupied with the situation quote back home...and that's fine but...we feel it's important to [be]...an organization that bridges...the priorities of, if you like, immigrant Muslim communities with the institutions here.Analysis of the main documents produced by each group in the period 2000-05-primarily press releases and emails to subscribers and members-confirmed that foreign policy was a lesser focus than domestic issues.5 Interestingly, both organizations had nearly equal proportions of foreign affairs'5 to total documents, at just less than a quarter.7 Moreover, in both cases, the proportion of documents that focused foreign affairs fluctuated dramatically depending the year-ranging between 17 and 47 percent for CIC and between five and 39 percent for CAIR-CAN.However, the degree of foreign interest within the two organizations' respective documents did not match up year to year and often fluctuated in different directions. For example, in 2002, when CAIR-CAN issued its highest proportion of international to total documents, CIC had its smallest ratio of the six years. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,015 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,017 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».