Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scrutinises the political strategies and ideological evolution of Islamist actors and forces following the Arab uprisings What role does political Islam play in the genealogy of protests as an instrument to resist neo-liberalism and authoritarian rule? How can we account for the internal conflicts among Islamist players after the 2011/2012 Arab uprisings? How can we assess the performance of Islamist parties in power? What geopolitical reconfigurations have the uprisings created, and what opportunities have arisen for Islamists to claim a stronger political role in domestic and regional politics? These questions are addressed in this book, which looks at the dynamics in place during the aftermath of the Arab uprisings in a wide range of countries across the Middle East and North Africa. Key features 22 case studies explain the diverse trajectories of political Islam since 2011 in Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Qatar, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey and Yemen Provides a comprehensive analysis of political Islam covering intra-Islamist pluralisation and conflict, governance and accountability issues, ‘secular-Islamist’ contention, responses to neo-liberal development and the resurgence of sectarianism and militancy Offers a set of innovative approaches to the study of political Islam in the post-Arab spring era that open new possibilities for theory development in the field Contributors Ibrahim Al-Marashi, California State University San Marcos Nazlı Çağın Bilgili, Istanbul Kultur University Souhaïl Belhadj, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva Francesco Cavatorta, Laval University, Quebec Chérine Chams El-Dine, Cairo University Katerina Dalacoura, London School of Economics and Political Science Jérôme Drevon, University of Oxford Vincent Durac, University College Dublin and Bethlehem University Laura Ruiz de Elvira Carrascal, French Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD), Paris Melissa Finn, University of Waterloo Courtney Freer, London School of Economics and Political Science Angela Joya , University of Oregon Wanda Krause, Royal Roads University Mohammed Masbah, Chatham House and Brandeis University Alam Saleh, Lancaster University Jillian Schwedler, City University of New York’s Hunter College Mariz Tadros, University of Sussex Truls Tønnessen, Georgetown University Marc Valeri, University of Exeter Anne Wolf, University of Cambridge Luciano Zaccara, Qatar University Barbara Zollner, Birkbeck College
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".