Mobilizing the <i>hijab</i>: Islamic identity negotiation in the context of a matchmaking website
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article explores the intended use and meaning of the hijab as a personal branding tool for Muslim users of an online matchmaking service. We analyze the motivations of male and female Muslim consumers for mobilizing the symbolism of the hijab as they construct online identities. We ask whether including information about ‘willingness to wear the hijab’ is motivated primarily by a desire to comply to normative rules of conduct or by an instrumental attitude driven by a desire to effectively build and communicate a personal online brand. Our results indicate that the meaning of the hijab is not fixed and uncontested but is dependent on the historical and social context of insertion. In the context of an online matchmaking site, the motivation to mobilize the hijab is predominantly instrumental. In addition, women are more likely to use the hijab for personal branding than men, whose motivation to mobilize the veil's cultural and traditional symbolism prevails. In accordance with previous research, we find that a higher degree of education reduces the likelihood of men and women to use the hijab in order to conform to community norms. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".