‘Making the Margins of Europe’: Marginalization, Europeanization and Islam in the contest for Public Space.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article intervenes into the debate around European identity, political Islam, and Turkey’s potential accession to the European Union through treating Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” as a bordering discourse. The article argues that the ‘clash thesis’ highlights uncertainty around cultural change in Europe as well as a tension within European Integration itself between the Nation as State and the Nation as political and cultural identity. Discourses which position specific groups as being unEuropean, or less European can be linked to the shifting meaning of Europe in light of political and economic integration and its affects on the Nation as titular owner of the State. The article argues that the debate around the compatibility of Islam and Europe and therefore, also the debate around Turkey’s accession to the European Union must be situated within the context of boundary formations driven by im/migration to Europe and within Europe and the rise in public visibility and assertiveness by second and third generation Islamic communities, thereby moving the debate beyond the Self /Other dichotomy upon which the ‘clash thesis’ functions by understanding the boundaries of Europe as negotiable and culturally situated within a publicly mediated discourse about ‘Europe’.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".