MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902499917 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v11n4p27

Resurgence of Ethno-Religious Sentiment against Muslims in Sri Lanka: Recent Anti-Muslim Violence in Ampara and Kandy

2018· article· en· W2902499917 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Firstname Lastname

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian Geopolitics and Ethnography
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSri lankaTamilJealousyShariaIslamPopulationCriminologyPolitical scienceSociologyGender studiesGeographySouth asiaPsychologyAnthropologyArtSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recent upsurge of violence against Muslims in various parts of Sri Lanka has grabbed the attention of popular discourses. However, little scholarly analysis has dealt with the recent rise of anti-Muslim sentiment and violence in the country, particularly the violence in Ampara and Kandy. As such, this article explores the implications and root causes of violence in Ampara and Kandy. This article is descriptive and interpretative in nature and mainly relies on secondary data. The article reveals that the violence in Ampara and Kandy unleashed by Sinhala Buddhist hardliners with complicity of law enforcement agencies caused much damage on the mosques, businesses and properties of Muslims. I argue that phobia against growing Muslim population, myth of sterilization pills, and economic jealousy and rivalry between Muslims and Sinhalese are the root causes of the violence against Muslims in Ampara and Kandy with some other sub-factors associated with it. Thus, there is a desperate need of better managing human and social security of all groups in the country, especially ethno-religious minorities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.299 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicAsian Geopolitics and EthnographyFrench-language works237,207