MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Discourses of Contradiction – A Postcolonial Analysis of Muslim Women and the Veil

2012· article· en· W2901813394 on OpenAlexaffabout
Golnaz Golnaraghi, Kelly Dye

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
Canadian institutionsAcadia UniversityAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOppressionGender studiesConstruct (python library)SociologyResistance (ecology)IslamContradictionEmpowermentPerspective (graphical)LawPolitical scienceTheologyArtPhilosophyPoliticsVisual artsEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drawing upon postcolonial and postcolonial feminist frames, this study critically analyzes the discourses of Muslim women and Western elites that serve to construct identities associated with niqab and veil-wearing Muslim women. Through print and digital media articles from January 2009 to December 2011, we trace the discursive character of the niqab and veil-wearing Muslim woman through conversations before, during and after Bill 94 was tabled by the Quebec government. Concerned not only with the Western construction of the Other, we attempted to provide the space necessary to hear Muslim women. Considerable focus was placed on teasing out interviews with Muslim women or responses by Muslim women. Findings suggest that several contradictions exist in terms of Western constructions and how Muslim women in Canada construct their own identities. At the center of these contradictions lies the symbolism of the niqab and veil, representing oppression and submission to some and empowerment and resistance to others.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0240.029
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademy of Management ProceedingsSame topicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political ViolenceFrench-language works237,207