We Can No Longer Trust: Suspicion and Vulnerability in The Reluctant Fundamentalist
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mohsin Hamid’s The Reluctant Fundamentalist attracts great attention of both common readers and critics because it reflects upon the 9/11 attacks from the perspective of Pakistani people. This essay focuses on suspicion that runs through the story and attempts to examine the suspicious mentality behind the 9/11 attacks and the so-called war on terror. Humans’ suspicion results from their shared vulnerability and might do more serious harm to one another. The novel explores the vulnerability of all people that live in the shadow of violence and proposes an equal conversation as a possible solution to remove suspicion and strengthen mutual understanding. By comparing the conversation at the core of the story and another one that happens between Changez and Juan-Bautista, the essay finds that the conversation is a doomed failure if people and their countries just care about their own interests and ignore the shared destiny of all humanity.
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 | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.080 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| 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".