Ruud Koopmans: Islams forfaldne hus. De religiøse årsager til ufrihed, stagnation og vold
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Det er usædvanligt, at en anmeldelse har fire forfattere. Denne anmeldelse har da også en lidt usædvanlig baggrund. Da den nederlandske sociolog Ruud Koopmans’ bog Het vervallen huis van de islam. Over de crisis van de islamitische wereld (2019 ) i 2020 udkom i dansk oversættelse, blev den læst ”med stor interesse” af udlændinge- og integrationsminister Mattias Tesfaye. Faktisk fik den en så begejstret modtagelse ikke mindst af Socialdemokratiets udlændingeordfører Rasmus Stoklund (A), at Koopmans blev betegnet som ”socialdemokraternes udlændingeguru”. Da professor Jakob Skovgaard-Petersen skrev en kritisk anmeldelse i Information (Skovgaard-Petersen 2021), kom der ikke alene et gensvar fra Koopmans, men også fra politikere som Liberal Alliances Henrik Dahl, som fra Folketingets talerstol tilsyneladende fortolkede anmeldelsen, som at Skovgaard-Petersen var ”notorisk enøjet”.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.004 |
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".