Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considering that in the 2015 Federal Election, candidates were often talkingabout Muslims and their relationship to Canada, whether from an empatheticand supportive position or from a negative and racist position, Kazemipur’sbook could not be more welcome and timely. While many of us in the Muslimcommunity wish we were not part of a “question” that needed debating anddiscussing, Kazemipur’s title is, regrettably, very consciously and aptly chosen,for it refers back to the debates in Europe at the turn of the nineteenthcentury about the “Jewish Question.” The author notes, as others have, thatcontemporary debates about “illiberal Muslims” with strange customs whocannot and will not “integrate” into Canadian society mirror those about Jewsin that era (pp. 7-8), and proposes to study this particular community througha much needed sociological lens. The book is very well-written, accessible,methodologically and theoretically sophisticated, and enormously useful –anyone who wants to talk about the Muslim experience in Canada will find itinsightful and indispensable for coming to terms with day-to-day realities ofthose experiences.Kazemipur rightly points out that this “Muslim” question is not fruitfullyapproached through the paradigm proposed by Samuel Huntington and likemindedscholars, namely, “culture,” which forms the basis of a “Muslim exceptionalism”(p. 5) and explains the “inability” of Muslims to integrate intowestern democracies. This approach, he argues, “grossly oversimplifies aBook Reviews 127complex and multifaceted problem” and “removes the possibility that themainstream population might have to take some moral responsibility for it”(p. 5). Integration is a relationship among different peoples. Thus he alsopoints out, although not until the end of the book, that trying to understandthese Muslims’ situation by focusing upon Islamic theology is less useful than ...
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.061 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
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".