MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2993179031 · doi:10.21810/jicw.v2i2.1066

Understanding Terrorism Through the Fear of Death

2019· article· en· W2993179031 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
CASIS

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Intelligence Conflict and Warfare · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerrorismPresentation (obstetrics)ManifestoIdeologyPoliticsPolitical scienceMedia studiesCriminologySociologyLawMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On September 19th 2019, the Canadian Association for Security and Intelligence Studies (CASIS) Vancouver hosted its roundtable meeting which covered “The Nature of Contemporary Terrorism.” The following presentation featured Dr. Robert Farkasch, a faculty lecturer in the Political Science Department at the University of British Columbia. Dr. Farkasch offers instruction in international political economy, international relations and terrorism studies. In his presentation, Dr. Farkasch appears to argue that religiously defined terrorism is the most dangerous ideological variant of terrorism and that the cause of terrorism is entrenched in our fear of death. The subsequent roundtable discussion centred around a case study of Brenton Tarrant, a 28-year- old Australian man that opened fire upon two Mosques in Christchurch New Zealand earlier this year, killing 51 people. Many called the attacks Islamophobic due to his targets and the content within a 74-page manifesto that Tarrant authored and released beforehand. Audience members at the roundtable discussed the nature of Tarrant’s attacks and how social media platforms could address radical positions within online spaces.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.024
Scholarly communication0.0090.013
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Intelligence Conflict and WarfareSame topicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political ViolenceFrench-language works237,207