MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064181116 · doi:10.1080/02604020213006

September 11, 2001: The Clash of Competing Worldviews

2002· article· en· W2064181116 on OpenAlexaff
Alastair M. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Futures · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHolismTerrorismHumanismSecularizationTheismEnvironmental ethicsMalaiseInterdependenceImmutabilitySociologyEpistemologyPolitical scienceLawPhilosophySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cataclysm of September 11, 2001 created a universal reaction that the world would never be the same. Understandably, Washington unleashed a counterattack to find and extirpate the terrorists as an end in itself. But is terrorism essentially a senseless act of anarchy, or does it mask a malaise deeply held in various non-Western cultures? This paper contends that the horrendous events of September 11 precipitated a head-on clash of two competing worldviews and societal orders: Muslim Theism versus secularized Western Humanism. Meanwhile, the latter is in turn being challenged in a second set of competing worldviews, not at the former site of the World Trade Center but wherever the World Trade Organization meets. Those outside the fenced perimeter are calling for implementation of a very different view of reality. This new paradigm with its own emerging attributes-Holism-builds upon humanistic traditions and values, but extends to all societies and cultures, henceforth perceived as systemically interdependent, and embracing all forms of life in an ecological matrix. For the first time in human evolution, all peoples are simultaneously being transformed in the direction of a new worldview that is global in its inclusiveness, and novel and innovative in its behaviour.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.011
Scholarly communication0.0170.008
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld FuturesSame topicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political ViolenceFrench-language works237,207