MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109569669

The Weaponization of Oil in the Messages of Osama Bin Laden

2008· article· en· W2109569669 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of military and strategic studies · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterary, Cultural, Historical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonialismContext (archaeology)RhetoricPower (physics)IslamAppealPolitical scienceMiddle EastBinSpanish Civil WarLawSociologyHistoryEngineeringArchaeologyTheology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper analyzes the use of oil as weaponization in the rhetoric of Osama bin Laden in the context of the 1967 Six Day War and the 1973 October War. Central to bin Laden’s own conception of his power is his ability to incite the Muslim community to support his worldview. This is manifested in his messages by his emphasis on colonialism and his appeal to Islamic values. This study focuses on the use of the weaponization of oil in the statements of Osama bin Laden against the West, Middle Eastern rulers, and the American people with the intent of weakening support for the Iraq War. This study contributes to the post-colonial understanding of the connections between colonialism and contemporary conflict in the Middle East.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.180 · 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