MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2308391319

The Arab Spring and Online Protests in Iraq

2014· article· en· W2308391319 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ahmed Al‐Rawi

Bibliographic record

VenueEUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)SectarianismSocial mediaPolitical scienceLanguage changeSpring (device)CLIPSPoliticsMedia studiesSociologyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article traces the influence of the Arab Spring on Iraq as activists staged fervent protests against the corruption, sectarianism, and favoritism of Nouri Maliki's government. A group of young Iraqi intellectuals, journalists, students, government employees, and unemployed youth posted their plan to organize demonstrations against the government using social media in February 2011. This study investigates the use of Facebook and YouTube, which bypassed the government's attempt to limit the coverage of these protests. Indeed, the events during the Arab Spring in Iraq crossed sectarian lines and united Iraqis against the Shiite-dominated government. I examine the five most popular Facebook pages and more than 806 YouTube clips and their 2,839 comments related to the Iraqi Arab Spring. The study reveals that young Iraqi men between the ages of 25 and 30 were the most active bloggers, while those between the ages of 20 and 24 were the most active commentators during the protests. Iraqis living in the United States and Canada played an important role by posting YouTube clips and comments. A gender disparity was evident; Iraqi men posted more video clips and comments than women.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations25
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam)Same topicComplex Network Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207