Transnational Radicalization, Diaspora Groups, and Within-group Sentiment Pools: Young Tamil and Somali Canadians on the LTTE and al Shabaab
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
In recent years, the Tamil and Somali diasporas have come under intense scrutiny by the media and national security agencies in Canada. This is due to concerns that members of both communities may hold political grievances associated with their respective homelands that could be acted upon by joining or supporting transnational terrorist groups. Drawing on 168 in-depth interviews with youth and young adults in Toronto’s Tamil and Somali diasporas, we provide a comparative analysis of the varying ways that existing sentiment pools can operate to mobilize broad-levels of support for, or vilification of, the framing strategies of the LTTE and al Shabaab, respectively. Our findings show that frames that portray the LTTE in a positive light resonate deeply with the young Tamil-Canadians we interviewed, characterizing a “narrative fidelity” between these frames and the existing sentiment pool. By contrast, there exists considerable disconnect between the framing strategies of al Shabaab, their supporters, and existing sentiment within the Somali diaspora – a divide that illustrates the notion of “framing failure”. We conclude with a discussion of the dynamic nature and inherent malleability of group-level sentiment pools, and highlight why this may be important from a national security standpoint.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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