MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2637599423 · doi:10.1177/0020702017710920

Canadian values and the Muslim world

2017· article· en· W2637599423 on OpenAlexaffabout
Aisha Ahmad

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy Analysis · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterPolitical scienceDemocracyPolitical economyIdeologyPower (physics)NothingLiberal democracyLawSociologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms constitutes the fundamental value system of our nation. The rise of anti-Muslim extremism thus presents a direct challenge to the core principles that define our liberal democracy. As our international order transforms, power polarities shift, and illiberal ideas spread across North America and Western Europe, maintaining commitment to these core Canadian values will become increasingly difficult. If our chief allies enact policies against their minority Muslim populations in the name of security, Canada will be put under pressure to do the same here at home, with devastating consequences for our democracy. Moreover, how Canada responds to the complex and multilayered crises that have gripped many parts of the modern Muslim world will have grave implications for both domestic and international security. Ideologically-motivated slogans do nothing to keep Canadians safe. It is therefore crucial that Canada continues to reject illiberal extremism and champions evidence-based international security policies, with a heavy investment in detailed ground-level analysis of these complex conflict theatres.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.835

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0250.013
Scholarly communication0.0090.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy AnalysisSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207