MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W34922836 · doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2021.09.009

Mohammedkarikatyrerna och skapandet av den Andre : En diskursanalys av den andres dominerande roll och identitet i Sverige

2006· article· en· W34922836 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
E. S. Olszewska

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nutrition Education and Behavior · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRobert Wood Johnson Foundation
KeywordsPolitical scienceNewspaperHumanitiesReligious studiesHistoryArtLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the paper is to explore the dominating perception of the Other after the conflict regarding the Danish Mohammed caricatures. How Swedish newspapers have portrayed Arabs, which role they have been given in society and what problems they are struggling with is going to be the focus of this thesis. As methodological approach I chose discourse analysis, since it presents a view where language defines and structures our understanding of reality. Through the study of various Swedish newspaper articles, this essay tries to illustrate the implicit yet existent negative image of the Arabs as a group and potential alternative ways of understanding the Other. The perception of Arabs is a product of a necessary imaginary foe, a mirror image of the bad and strange in contrast to the idyllic and safe Swedish nationality. The rhetoric’s of the discourse are therefore constructed between a politics of acknowledgement and a will to culturally dominate the Other. To challenge this view the citizens of a nation must accept it as nothing more than an imaginary design.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nutrition Education and Behavior→Same topicMigration, Refugees, and Integration→French-language works237,207→