Globalization and Islamophobia: Critical View at Globalization’s Impact on Expansion of Islamophobia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The globalization process, with its own special tools, is affecting the surrounding world, and the religion of Islam and its ideological structures, as well as any other stream of globalization process, are affected. The process of globalization affected by the current trend is in the pursuit of dominance over other competing ideologies and, in the meantime, deals with the struggle with competing ideologies with tools such as the spread of democracy, technology, consumerism, and so on. The process of globalization in dealing with Islamic ideology, due to structural, fundamental, ideological and so on contradictions, reveals the ideology of political Islam as weak and weak. The globalization discourse with the central point of modernism opposes other discourses and is now struggling with the discourse of political Islam. Globalization discourse, with its special system of meaning, seeks to change the values of the political Islam discourse. One of the most striking features of globalization discourse is through the political Islam discourse, the concentration and expansion of the idea of Islamophobia. The idea of Islamophobia is one of the socio-political foundations of the domination system, which has emerged through the mechanisms of the globalization process. In this research, the data have been gathered using the documentary methodology, the theoretical framework of the research has shaped theories of the critical school and postmodern thought, and the analysis of the research data has been done using the method of critical discourse analysis.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".