MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140035081 · doi:10.1177/002071520204300304

Muslims and Democracy an Empirical Critique of Fukuyama’s Culturalist Approach

2002· article· en· W2140035081 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

VenueInternational Journal of Comparative Sociology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuthoritarianismDemocracyLiberal democracyIslamCapitalismModernityPoliticsPolitical economyPolitical scienceSociologyPositive economicsLawEconomicsPhilosophyTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper intends to demonstrate three objectives: (1) Fukuyama’s theory of the triumph of liberal democracy is cross culturally plausible at the attitudinal level; (2) Fukuyama’s claim that Islam is resistant to modernity (characterized by liberal democracy and capitalism) does not hold up to empirical testing. That is, using Islam as an explanatory variable of democracy/authoritarianism is largely uncorroborated; and (3) Explore alternative explanations for the absence of democracy in most of Middle Eastern countries. The paper concludes by emphasizing the importance of Human Development and Political Opportunity Structure for the explanation of democracy/authoritarianism. The main conclusion of the paper is that Islam is largely irrelevant as an explanatory variable for authoritarianism/democracy.

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 score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.338 · 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