MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2619526579 · doi:10.1386/ijcis.11.1-2.23_1

Entrenching sectarianism: How Chilcot sees Iraq

2017· article· en· W2619526579 on OpenAlexaff
Tareq Y. Ismael, Jacqueline S. Ismael

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Contemporary Iraqi Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPost-Soviet Geopolitical Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSectarianismPoliticsLawPolitical scienceConstitutionSocial orderSociologyGovernment (linguistics)DenialPolitical economyCriminology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.574
Threshold uncertainty score0.701

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.311 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Contemporary Iraqi StudiesSame topicPost-Soviet Geopolitical DynamicsFrench-language works237,207