Bibliographic record
Abstract
For the last three years, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman hasbeen telling Muslims all over the world: “You either have to have a war withinor a war with us.” Acall for Muslim “civil war” has become the battle cryof the neo-cons. Using these “civil wars,” Muslims killing Muslims in largenumbers, the neo-cons expect to accomplish three goals: (1) the re-creationof Muslim societies in the western image, with or without democratic institutions,(2) long-term control over oil and policies toward Israel, and (3) thereconstruction of Islam on the Biblical model, reformation included.A while back, the Rand Corporation, a semi-autonomous think tank,issued a report titled Civil Democratic Islam: Partners, Resources, andStrategies authored by Cheryl Benard (http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1716/MR1716.pdf). American Muslims must take note ofthis, because it is already being implemented in “letter and spirit” by variousagencies and even “private” groups.Though the author of this report claims: “The United States has threegoals in regard to politicized Islam. First, it wants to prevent the spread ofextremism and violence. Second, in doing so, it needs to avoid the impressionthat the United States is ‘opposed to Islam.’ And third, in the longerrun, it must find ways to help address the deeper economic, social, andpolitical causes feeding Islamic radicalism and to encourage a move towarddevelopment and democratization,” its actual aims are discernable from itspolicy recommendations, detailed below.Cheryl Bernard, the author of this report [and wife of Zalmay Khalizad,the American ambassador to Afghanistan], claims: “This approach seeks tostrengthen and foster the development of civil, democratic Islam and ofmodernization and development. It provides the necessary flexibility todeal with different settings appropriately, and it reduces the danger of unintendednegative effects. The following outline describes what such a strategymight look like: ...
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 | 0.006 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.565 | 0.573 |
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".