MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1594836637 · doi:10.3968/5461

Examining the Trends of Islamophobia: Western Public Attitudes Since 9/11

2014· article· en· W1594836637 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Basem Al Atom

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in sociology of science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Science and Policy Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIslamophobiaXenophobiaIslamPublic opinionRacismPolitical scienceTheme (computing)Media studiesSociologyLawHistoryPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examined the trends of Islamophobia by looking at the changes in Western public attitudes towards Muslims and Islam that have occurred since 2001, in addition to the factors that have influenced such changes. It employed both qualitative and quantitative analysis in analyzing current public opinion poll data borrowed from: Angus Reid Global, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, the National Association of Muslim Police and the Arab American Institute. In addition, it analyzed current media reports that similarly illustrate Islamophobic trends after 9/11. Results indicate that the most dramatic increase in Islamophobic attitudes towards Muslims and Islamic institutions occurred in the UK immediately after 9/11, with a common theme exhibiting itself in comparing the various country reports and public opinion poll data examined in this study – namely, the involvement of factors such as Islamic clothing that commonly distinguishes Muslims from non-Muslims in inciting Islamophobia. In addition, results indicate that rather than decrease over time, as was initially hypothesized, Islamophobic attitudes are currently on the rise.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.321
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in sociology of scienceSame topicSocial Science and Policy ResearchFrench-language works237,207