Preventing radicalization leading to violence: Insights from the significance quest theory and its <scp>3N</scp> model
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Radicalization leading to violence is a major societal issue all over the globe. In order to prevent its increase and expansion, measures need to be taken at different instances and levels. In the present narrative review, to inform evidence‐based practices, we bring together numerous applied recommendations made by scholars studying the psychological underpinnings of radicalization within the framework of the Significance Quest Theory and its 3N model. The applied recommendations target at least one of the three elements of the 3N model (i.e., need, narrative, and network) in at least one of the three levels of prevention (i.e., primary, secondary, and tertiary). In the discussion, we highlight which of these are still lacking empirical evaluation, which might be problematic and why, and how policymakers, practitioners, and researchers can work together to provide an integrative model of intervention addressing both the need for significance and the influence of radical narratives and groups. Please refer to the Supplementary Material section to find this article's Community and Social Impact Statement .
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it