MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W300971355

CENTRAL ASIA: For Prophet and Tsar: Islam and Empire in Russia and Central Asia

2007· article· en· W300971355 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Middle East Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSoviet and Russian History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIslamEmpireState (computer science)ScholarshipChristianitySociologyLawTolerationSyncretism (linguistics)HistoryReligious studiesPolitical sciencePoliticsPhilosophyArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CENTRAL ASIA For Prophet and Tsar: Islam and Empire in Russia and Central Asia, by Robert D. Crews. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006. viii + 370 pages. $29.95. Reviewed by Edward Schatz In the current global climate, one might be forgiven for missing the rapprochement, reconciliation, toleration, and institutional syncretism that has characterized relations between Muslim and non-Muslim populations through much of a complex history. Russia and most of ex-Soviet space defy simplistic notions of civilizational clashes. Though often associated in the popular imagination with Orthodox Christianity and brutality against Muslim Chechens, today's Russia is home to about 25 million autochthonous Muslims, most of whom coexist reasonably well with, and participate in, the Russian state. Robert Crews's For Prophet and Tsar is a work of historical scholarship, but it speaks directly and effectively to today's burning debates. Drawing attention to the ways in which the Tsars simultaneously used and promoted Islam as a tool for coopting and controlling its far-flung Muslim populations, Crews implicitly addresses three crucial issues. First, he provides an example of a state apparatus that deliberately structured relations with religious groups as a way to administer territory. Similar crafting efforts are underway today in Ottawa, Washington, Paris, London, and elsewhere. Second, he demonstrates that Muslims were rarely the passive recipients or victims of state policies; they were active participants in crafting their own fates, often by becoming a part of the state apparatus itself. Third, he shows that, whatever the Russian state attempted, local populations always managed to take advantage of new opportunities provided by changing state policies and evolving local conditions. After an effective introduction, in chapter one Crews details the creation of a state-sanctioned Muslim religious apparatus, modeled after the Ottoman version, in Ufa (today's Bashkortostan). This apparatus served as a further model for relations with other Muslims elsewhere in the expanding empire, such as the rest of the Volga and Ural region (chapter two), and the steppes of today's central and northern Kazakhstan (chapter four). Chapter three addresses the crucial matter of how the Russian empire structured relations within the Muslim family, always through partial accommodation as a way to render Muslims visible to the empire. Chapter five details how earlier forms of accommodation and control were adapted in the rush to conquer the oasis regions of Central Asia. …

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.644
Threshold uncertainty score0.699

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.234 · 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