MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007350735 · doi:10.1525/jpms.2020.32.1.57

Refusing the Interrogation

2020· article· en· W3007350735 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Reem M. Hilal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Popular Music Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMusic History and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerrorismCONTESTNarrativeGeopoliticsPoliticsPolitical dissentInterrogationDissentEthnic groupSociologyPolitical scienceState (computer science)Gender studiesCriminologyMedia studiesLawArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the way in which hip hop artists Iraqi British Lowkey, Iraqi Canadian Narcy, and the Palestinian crew DAM deploy music to challenge narratives of terrorism that are constructed to achieve political objectives and consequently obfuscate geopolitical inequities. Central to these narratives is the figure of the terrorist who is often conflated with Arabs, Muslims, Middle Easterners, and those who express dissent against these narratives. All three artists use hip hop to deconstruct the narratives of terrorism in order to address the perspectives of marginalized groups and to problematize their use. Through their music, Lowkey, Narcy, and DAM contest definitions of terrorism that are differentially applied to certain communities and do not address the use of violence, specifically state violence, to achieve political objectives. These artists suggest an alternative framework where terrorism is not determined by a specific cultural, ethnic, national, or religious affiliation, the root causes of violence are considered, and the complex geopolitical landscape contextualized.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.022
Scholarly communication0.0080.011
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0090.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.005

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 head0.240
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.044 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Popular Music StudiesSame topicMusic History and CultureFrench-language works237,207