Bibliographic record
Abstract
The securitization of Muslims has been an ongoing process in the “war on terror” discourse of the past 15 years. It has solidified the perception of Muslims as enemies in and of the West through a logic which creates hierarchies of belonging and undermines their claims to citizenship. In addition, securitization has expanded to include not only the state, but also members of society to be vigilant about threats and to protect the country through their everyday roles and activities. In this broader context, this paper critically examines the securitization of Muslims in the war on terror in Canada in the context of state concerns about violent radicalization among Muslim youth. While this has been an ongoing federal matter since 2011, when the Canadian government released its counter-terrorism policy, Canada did not have a centralized national Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) program. This creates space for Quebec to propose and implement its own Anti-Radicalization Plan (2015–2018). This paper undertakes an analysis of how the Quebec government’s counter-radicalization plan reframes the issue and expands it from being a political and legal issue into a social problem, reinforcing Quebec-specific concerns about diversity, identity and intercultural social relations between white francophone majorities and minority Muslim immigrant youth. The plan illustrates how securitization works as an expansive process that involves both the state and society by making national security the primary lens for the provision of health, education and related social services. It reinforces the social construction of Muslims as threats to the nation, and more broadly, to the West.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".