Review: <i>Wearing the Niqab: Muslim Women in the UK and the US</i>, by Anna Piela
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Book Review| May 01 2022 Review: Wearing the Niqab: Muslim Women in the UK and the US, by Anna Piela Wearing the Niqab: Muslim Women in the UK and the US. By Anna Piela. Bloomsbury, 2021. 192 pages. $100.00 hardcover; $39.95 softcover; ebook available. Kristin M. Peterson Kristin M. Peterson Boston College Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Nova Religio (2022) 25 (4): 132–134. https://doi.org/10.1525/nr.2022.25.4.132 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Kristin M. Peterson; Review: Wearing the Niqab: Muslim Women in the UK and the US, by Anna Piela. Nova Religio 1 May 2022; 25 (4): 132–134. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/nr.2022.25.4.132 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentNova Religio Search Countless academic research projects discuss the perennial niqab bans that pop up in various Western municipalities, addressing the legality of these policies as well as the media coverage. However, the voices of the women who choose to wear the niqab are rarely heard. Anna Piela attempts to rectify this research gap by centering on the personal experiences of women who wear the niqab in the United States and United Kingdom, two contexts that are also underdiscussed with the hyper-focus on niqab bans in France and Canada. Building on Piela's training in gender studies and feminist methods, Wearing the Niqab relies on extensive interviews, in which the women share their own faith narratives and the various reasons they have for wearing the niqab. Chapter 1 provides important context to how the British and U.S. media misrepresent niqabi women with a critical discourse analysis of nearly a hundred articles. Piela finds two... You do not currently have access to this content.
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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".