MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3104447080 · doi:10.1080/15562948.2020.1833271

Boundary Regimes and the Gendered Racialized Production of Muslim Masculinities: Cases from Canada and Germany

2020· article· en· W3104447080 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gökçe Yurdakul, Anna C. Korteweg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoundary (topology)RefugeeGender studiesThe SymbolicPoliticsSociologyIslamophobiaGovernment (linguistics)Boundary-workPolitical scienceLawSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Boundary regimes consist of multiple discursive and material registers in media, politics, law and everyday interaction. We show how “safety” and “danger,” as key concepts of symbolic boundaries, produce particular understandings of Muslim masculinities. In Canada, the government discussed (but did not enact) placing single Syrian men at the bottom of the admissible to-be-resettled refugee list in 2015. In Cologne, Germany, refugee men were accused of sexually assaulting a large number of women in 2015. Focusing on “safety” and “danger” discourses, we show that symbolic boundaries had limited material impact in Canada while they informed major legal changes in Germany.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.429
Threshold uncertainty score0.795

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Immigrant & Refugee StudiesSame topicMigration, Refugees, and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207