Salafism, liberalism, and democratic learning in Tunisia
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article charts the rise of the jihadi Salafi movement in Tunisia during the transitional period and analyses the way in which the national attempt to construct a more liberal and democratic system influenced its internal dynamics and debate. It highlights in particular how democratic mechanisms and liberal norms being put in place in Tunisia impacted on the movement and how then this was reflected in its interactions with the other social and political actors in the system. The unique Tunisian environment in which democratic mechanisms and individual liberal freedoms were introduced immediately after the revolution led the jihadi Salafi movement to operate through contradictory behaviour and actions in a process of what can be called ‘stop-start’ democratic learning, which ultimately failed. The novelty of the political arrangements was beneficial to jihadi Salafism initially, as the new liberal environment allowed it to proselytise and organise in the open while railing against democracy and liberalism. In doing so they unwillingly contributed to strengthen the consensus of political actors on the necessity to build a democratic system. However, under the weight of this contradictory attitude, the movement ended up threatening the transition and failed to integrate.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it