Community-Focused Counter-Radicalization and Counter-Terrorism Projects: Experiences and Lessons Learned
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following the launch of the global war on terror, western nations commissioned multiple community focused projects aimed at preventing terrorism and countering violent extremism. With an understanding that a comprehensive approach entails both proactive counter-radicalization measures and rehabilitation initiatives, these community-based projects typically aim to build resiliency and enhance prevention capacity within specific communities. This book focuses on the perceptions and experiences of twenty-nine community-based counter-radicalization project leaders in eight western countries: the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, Germany, Belgium, Scotland, and France. By closely examining these efforts across multiple national contexts and in diverse communities, this book examines the challenges and opportunities of community-focused projects as identified by such projects’ leaders. At the book’s heart are interviews about community engagement and experience from the people most closely attuned to this vital work. By highlighting the importance of listening to community members, the book offers a rare chance to directly hear community members’ ideas, frustrations, and hopes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".