Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the junction of history, international relations, political science, andcommunication studies, Karim H. Karim’s Islamic Peril provides seriousand in-depth research on the media coverage of violence involving Muslimindividuals and groups. This updated edition of the book, first published in2000, adds a preface and an afterword that briefly account for 9/11 and itsaftermath. While studying the construction of Islam as the primary “Other”in Canada’s main print media since the beginning of the 1980s, the authorargues that the numerous (mis)representations and stereotypes of Muslimsare based on a lack of religious, sociological, political, and historicalknowledge rather than on what Karim calls a “centrally organized journalisticconspiracy against Islam” (p. 4).The author concentrates on the construction, flow, and reproductionof globally dominant interpretations through relations of power and dominationbetween the North and the South, but also inside the North’s media.His focus on journalism’s internal mechanisms (e.g., dependence on alimited number of sources, the need for simplification, and the clash ofinterests between information and business) and the wider sociopoliticaldomination processes (e.g., the end of the cold war or unipolarity) preventsthe analysis from being overtly simplistic and adopting a victimmentality. The author does not just highlight the (mis)representations; healso tries to analyze them. His approach is optimistic, for it implies thereis no fatality in reproducing stigmatization and stereotypes.Karim studies what could be called the “Islamization of representations”:the social construction of the linkage between facts of violence thatare historically and sociologically rooted and the notion of Islam as anessence. His analysis does not revolutionise the approach toward discourseson Islam, for one can feel how much he was influenced by the ...
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.104 | 0.056 |
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".