Entrenching sectarianism: How Chilcot sees Iraq
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The 2003 invasion of Iraq by a coalition led by the United States and United Kingdom brought about a regime change that saw the imposition of a sectarianized political order in Iraq. Never before experienced by Iraqis, this politicized the social phenomenon of sectarian identity and prejudice. In spite of the countless references to the role of sectarianism by witnesses appearing before them, the 2016 Iraq Inquiry Report largely accepted the phenomenon as Sui generis – originating from within the Iraqi social setting and therefore accepted it as a rational and pragmatic modality around which to structure the new political order. This assumption saw the Inquiry adopt the assumption held by those they were meant to interrogate – the British officials and government decision makers who led Britain to war in 2003. The article argues that the new regime imposed through the US–UK occupation was not reflective of a bottom up desire for communal representation but rather a top down imposition by the occupation. This resulted in the expression of conflict in predominantly sectarian terms since 2003, the institutionalization of sectarianism in the constitution and government apparatus, as well as a denial of Iraqi self-determination and the opening of the country to excessive foreign influence, extending the bloodletting and impairing economic growth and social comity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".