MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021616902 · doi:10.1177/1750635211434366

Uncovering the French-speaking jihadisphere: An exploratory analysis

2012· article· en· W2021616902 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin Ducol

Bibliographic record

VenueMedia War & Conflict · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersDublin City University
KeywordsIdeologyGermanThe InternetPolitical scienceMedia studiesArabicPublic relationsIslamSociologyLawHistoryPoliticsWorld Wide WebComputer scienceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Terrorist groups have exploited the internet and other information technologies to advance their strategies since the mid-1990s. Violent jihadi groups are no exception. They have located the internet at the core of their media strategies, which has given birth to a vibrant global jihadisphere: an online community of militants and sympathizers united by their common adherence to a global Salafi jihadi ideology. Not only do jihadi groups devote increasing energy to attempting to connect with global audiences, but jihadi sympathizers from all around the world are more involved than ever in widening the spread of jihadi online content through para-personal media. The expanding use of non-Arabic languages such as French, English, German, Russian and Dutch by jihadi groups and ideologues has not yet been adequately examined in the academic literature. This article represents a preliminary effort at delineating the nature of the French-speaking jihadisphere, including discussion of the major websites and forums composing it, the real and virtual links between these, and how forum users originally learned of the forums’ existence.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations36
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedia War & ConflictSame topicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political ViolenceFrench-language works237,207