Something Got Into Their Minds: The Rise of Radicalization Discourse in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation examines the rise of radicalization discourse in Canada. Drawing on postcolonial theories of Orientalism and affect, I contend that radicalization is a racially-charged concept that characterizes anti-Western violence in ways that relieve Western states of culpability for their colonial provocations. Evidence of such provocations is diluted through prevailing radicalization discourses that inform counter-terrorism frameworks and shape popular understandings of terrorism. Such frameworks rely heavily on race-based assumptions painting Muslim-looking subjects and communities of colour as especially susceptible to extremism and terrorist violence. These assumptions construct an ostensibly scientific framework for radicalization that transforms mundane behaviours into “indicators” of suspiciousness and risk amongst people of colour. This leads to what I term a “pretrapment” logic whereby thoughts and behaviours racially tagged as “Muslim” are used to justify pre-emptive interventions designed to halt a future terrorist attack. Additionally, radicalization discourse paints Muslim communities as “suspicious allies” that are perceived as both breeding grounds for radicalization and necessary agents of surveillance for the state. Against this backdrop, sport is constructed as a key catalyst for deradicalization interventions on susceptible subjects who may otherwise slip into violent, extremist thoughts and action. Sport’s role in deradicalization helps augment colonial discourses that align with imperial myths of benevolence, western characterizations of Muslim culture as universally misogynistic, and the construction of Muslim-looking people as constant outsiders within western civilization.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.060 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".