Authoritarianism and Islamic Movements in the Middle East: Research and Theory-building in the Twenty-first Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the previous decade, many scholars with expertise in the politics of the Middle East pointed to an intellectual gulf between Middle East studies and mainstream international and comparative political studies. Common perceptions that the Middle East experience was too exceptional to be theory-relevant and that area studies work was excessively a-theoretical were said to be responsible for the alleged chasm. If these concerns are taken at face value, a review of research published on authoritarianism and Islamic movements in the first years of the twenty-first century in top academic presses and scholarly journals indicates that a counter trend has emerged. Middle East area experts are increasingly making use of theoretical frameworks produced by non-Middle East specialists. There is, however, variation in how well disciplinary social science analytical tools are applied and in the significance of various works to theory-building. More emphasis on theory-testing and construction (rather than just theory application) as well as cross-regional and cross-cultural comparisons will increase the comparative value of works produced by Middle East area studies specialists and will add to their visibility in the discipline at large.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".