‘Radicalisation: the journey of a concept’, revisited
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
Over the past decade, radicalisation has emerged as perhaps the most pervasive framework for understanding micro-level transitions towards violence. However, the concept has not only become a dominant policing framework, but also an overarching governmental strategy encompassing surveillance, security, risk and community engagement. The emergence of this strategy has been accompanied by a whole host of analysts, advisers and scholars, who claim to possess ‘expert’ knowledge of individual transitions towards political violence. Revisiting ‘Radicalisation: the journey of a concept’, Arun Kundnani’s 2012 typology of such ‘expertise’ ( Race & Class, doi 10.1177/0306396812454984), the author comparatively examines scholarly developments in relation to ‘radicalisation’ and juxtaposes new knowledge claims with official government counter-radicalisation strategies and funding programmes in the UK, US and Canada to highlight how some of the most problematic knowledge claims continue to influence social policy as we move forward in the global ‘war on terror’.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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