The Routinisation of Authority: A Comparative Perspective on Marginalisation, Socio-economic Factors and Perceptions on Authority in Contemporary Shiʿa Islam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper addresses the main contextual drivers of routinisation of Shiʿa religious, social, and political authority in the Middle East and beyond. It has three objectives: to enhance understanding of the socioeconomic conditions of Shiʿites in countries with a considerable Shiʿite population in the Middle East and beyond; to analyse possible patterns of marginalisation; and to show how authority is viewed. A conceptual framework for the routinisation of religious authority, focusing on Shiʿa Islam, is used to analyse twenty-one national surveys in ten countries with a sample size of 33,922, including approximately 14,000 Shiʿite respondents. In addition to confessional differences, patterns are also explored in attitudes to democratic versus authoritarian rule. The paper concludes that in times of turmoil the routinisation of authority will be marked either by polarisation accompanied by traditionalisation, or by a call for the rationalisation of charismatic authority by a large proportion of the Shiʿite constituencies, showing a multifaceted pattern of perceptions of religious authority in the political realm.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".