MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Radicalization and Recruitment

2017· book-chapter· en· W4237830505 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anthony J. Masys

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInformation Systems Theories and Implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadicalizationTerrorismApprehensionProcess (computing)Conceptual frameworkThrough-the-lens meteringState (computer science)Political scienceCriminologyComputer scienceSociologyLens (geology)PsychologyEngineeringLawSocial scienceCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent events such as the terrorist attack in Algeria (January 2013), the Boston Marathon Bombing (April 2013), the apprehension of two suspected al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Toronto, (April 2013), highlight the requirement for greater understanding regarding the radicalization and recruitment of terrorists. As detailed in the US Department of State Report (2011), over 10,000 terrorist attacks occurred in 2011, affecting nearly 45,000 victims in 70 countries and resulting in over 12,500 deaths. With a focus on the outcomes and results of terrorist activities, terrorism itself often becomes a ‘blackbox' concept that does not capture the essence of the radicalization process nor the mechanisms of recruitment. This conceptual paper introduces Actor Network Theory (ANT) as a systems lens to open the ‘blackbox' of terrorism. This systems lens ‘…is a discipline for seeing wholes. It is a framework for seeing interrelationships rather than things, for seeing patterns of change rather than static snapshots' (Senge, 1990:68). The systems view facilitated by ANT is supported and informed by methods of network analysis and conceptual modelling that highlight how dynamic networked actors shape the radicalization process through the actor network process of translation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score0.579

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicInformation Systems Theories and ImplementationFrench-language works237,207