Bibliographic record
Abstract
The spectacle of the war of terror has produced a social semiology of fear and insecurity that has encoded the popular geopolitical imaginary in North America and Western Europe in such a way that particular cultural symbols, behaviors, practices, and/or activities are interpreted as suspicious, dangerous, and potentially violent. Consequently, as Montague Kern, Marion Just, and Pippa Norris suggest, the ability to disentangle the social construction of reality from the “actual” reality of particular practices and actions has become very difficult to perform for both state and non-state actors, such as elected officials, the media, and the general public.1 This difficulty in differentiating between the socially constructed and actual reality of particular actions and practices can result in the misapprehension of these same actions and practices. For instance, the wearing of the niqab has become a symbol of Islamic fundamentalism, oppression, and anti-Westernism, and the group formation of Islamitic social actors in specific contexts has become overdetermined as an index of criminal intentionality and extremism. Against these ideological misapprehensions, one should, in the case of the latter, avoid the essentialist tendency to reduce a fortiori these types of group formations to a moment of latent extremist criminality. Although following the events of 11 September 2001 many countries, including Canada, have criminalized specific types of group formations and concomitant actions and practices, these maneuvers of criminological categorization not only reinforce and invite a condemnatory and prosecutorial hermeneutic but construct the presence of Islamitic extremist subjectivities whether or not these subjectivities actually exist. As a result, the role of these specific types of group formations and related actions and practices in the ideological conditioning and political transformation of the Islamitic social actors involved is obfuscated and rendered opaque.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".