MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110616161 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v14n1p32

Terrorism and Contemporary Religious Cults: Jim Jones, Shoko Asahara and Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi

2020· article· en· W3110616161 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tareq S. Albhlal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMajmaah University
KeywordsTerrorismCultBuddhismSectPolitical radicalismState (computer science)IslamChristianityGovernment (linguistics)SociologyReligious studiesPolitical scienceLawTheologyPhilosophyPoliticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study breaks new ground in the field of radical cults as it provides a contemporary insight into three cult leaders; Jim Jones, Shoko Asahara and Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi. This comparative analytical study will assist national and local government agencies with the identifying the relations between those leaders and their conclusions of terrorism, which in turn, had led to the mass death of cult adherents. Terrorism is a major, and growing, concern in the world today as it relates to security, safety, and the efficient operation of the most important service sectors in any state. The personalities of Jones, Asahara and Al-Baghdadi have made of them sect leaders from three very different religions: Christianity, Buddhism and Islam. Therefore, religion is not the source of radicalism/mass death as the similarities and commonalities exist among those three different groups. Eminently, this study has emphasized on the answers analytically to the research query through academic process supported by refereed articles and real-life occurrences.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political ViolenceFrench-language works237,207