Women and Violent Radicalization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present report has two main sections, each containing two chapters. The purpose of the first section is to better define the composition and contours of “radicalization leading to violence”. Its first chapter (3.1) clarifies the concepts and definitional issues around such radicalization. Its second chapter (3.2) demonstrates the value of approaching the topic from the angle of gender and gender-differentiated analysis. After a historical review of feminine involvement in violent radicalism, it outlines how the phenomenon is generally treated in the media and scholarly research, and shows the nuances to be gained from a postcolonial perspective on gender. The second section, containing the third and fourth chapters, deals more precisely with women’s involvement today in radical Islamism and certain jihadist groups. Based on a comprehensive review of the literature on radicalization leading to violence from a gender perspective, the third chapter (4.1) offers a status report on what is known internationally about women’s involvement in radicalization leading to violence. Pointing out the strengths and limitations of existing knowledge, the literature review suggests the theoretical and empirical contributions that feminist research can make to this subject. The fourth and last chapter (4.2) presents a description and analysis of the radical involvement of Québec women in Islamism. Based on unpublished empirical data from a field study conducted in Québec, this chapter draws connections between the empirical reality in Québec and the theoretical elements discussed earlier, for a better understanding of why some Québec women have wanted to join jihadist groups in Syria.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".