MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2498321542 · doi:10.1057/9781137002969_4

Problematic Modernization: The Extent and Formation of Muslim Antipathy to Homosexuality

2014· book-chapter· en· W2498321542 on OpenAlexaff
Momin Rahman

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · 2014
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMarriage and Sexual Relationships
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntipathyHomosexualityIslamIdeologyReligiositySecularismGender studiesIslamophobiaPrejudice (legal term)SociologySecularizationMainstreamPolitical sciencePoliticsLawPhilosophyTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Perhaps most people assume that Islam must be opposed to sexual diversity and gender equality because their first thoughts are of fundamentalist Islam based on rigid interpretations of the Quran. Muslims are not immune to this assumption either, with much of the evidence discussed below indicating a common sense understanding of Islamic prohibition of homosexuality.1 There is, however, a wider public culture in the West in which we associate all of our present mainstream religious traditions with antipathy to homosexuality. The first wave of gay liberation analyses focused keenly on Christianity’s contribution to ideologies of homosexual oppression (Altman, 1993 [1971]) and most accounts of the progress of LGBTIQ rights include the gradual secularization of Western societies as a key explanatory factor (Weeks, 2007). To this day, religiosity seems to be a key explanatory variable in accounting for homophobia amongst populations and, moreover, antigay prejudice often appears as the most extreme form of discrimination in religious populations (Leak and Finken, 2011). In many Western countries, conflicts between religious and queer rights groups have existed since the early days of gay liberation and continue in the present era of increasing queer rights.

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 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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.727

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooksSame topicMarriage and Sexual RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207