Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shortly after publishing Jocelyne Cesari’s edited Handbook of European Islam(Oxford University Press: 2014), Oxford University Press more or less roundsoff the topic of Muslims in the western world with this volume on the UnitedStates. The editors, Yvonne Y. Haddad and Jane I Smith, have made amplecontributions on this topic during the last twenty years at least. This volume,to some extent, updates their previous works that have followed the evolutionand changes seen by the country’s Muslim communities (e.g., Muslim Communitiesin North America [Albany: SUNY Press, 1994], edited by both, andThe Muslims of America [New York: Oxford University Press, 1991], editedby Haddad). This may not be the last step in this direction, but it is certainlythe most comprehensive and ambitious one so far.The titles of their previous works, and indeed of this volume, touch on apreliminary problem. As a matter of fact, the volume should have borne thetitle Islam in the USA, since Central and Latin America and even Canada arenot mentioned. Many reasons, in any case, justify this circumscribed focus.As rightly pointed out in the “Introduction” (p. 4), American Islam is the mostheterogeneous in the world and no doubt constitutes the main issue when dealingwith Islam in North, Central, and South America. It is also the most heterogeneousand the most complex. As a matter of fact, these complex lines ofevolution of the West’s Islamic communities are exemplified by a simple comparisonbetween the two handbooks. Whereas Cesari’s edited European Islamwas described with an extensive first part that introduced the history and evolutionof Muslim communities in European countries plus some thematicchapters, in this book the approach is different.The thirty chapters deal with a number of specific topics identified assignificant, not to say fundamental, and are, furthermore, organized in three ...
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.087 | 0.041 |
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".