Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing practice of Islam in Tajikistan in the last few years has contributed to rising social and political tensions. Based on ethnographic fieldwork conducted in Northern Tajikistan between May and October 2010, this article intends to highlight underlying religious tensions in Tajikistan, which, I argue, are the result of the emergence of conflicting voices contesting current political spaces. My intention is to revisit two concepts abundantly used in the religious literature. First, I intend to deconstruct the dichotomous relation between the state and society and try to uncover the power relations that lie behind the making, dissemination and understanding of narratives addressing the place of Islam in society. Second, I reconsider the categories of the secular and the religious by illustrating the porous character of these concepts in the Tajik context. I do so by providing accounts of local perceptions of religious politics expressed by politicians and bureaucrats, ordinary believers and representatives of the Islamic Revival Party of Tajikistan. Finally, I argue that the coexistence of different sets of religious and secular norms reveals that the struggle for political power in Tajikistan is now increasingly articulated around religious issues.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".