MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Reclaiming a Diverse Ummah: Social Justice and Community among Young Muslims in the United States

2022· article· en· W4312038158 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Haleema Welji

Bibliographic record

VenueAnthropologica · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Society, and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDignityIdeologySociologyIslamCriminologyHumanityEconomic JusticeGender studiesEnvironmental ethicsLawPolitical sciencePoliticsTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores how the concepts of dignity and conviviality impact the social justice work of young-adult Muslims in the United States. Here, conviviality demands confronting and coping with historical discrimination, exploitation, and abuse (Gilroy 2004) and is examined in relation to the ideology of the Muslim ummah, a united, global community of all Muslims. However, the Muslims this article focuses on see a tension between the ideology of the ummah and the practice, which results in inequity and a lack of dignity experienced by some Muslims. The author argues that attempts at building convivial relationships inadvertently lead Muslims to feel distance and isolation from Muslim spaces and community. Their social justice work provides them with the ability to look beyond the Muslim ummah and see dignity in a shared humanity. Combined with their intellectual and academic study of social justice, these Muslims are developing their own ethical frameworks grounded in Islam. Though challenging to enact, by continually confronting their privileges, biases, and blind spots, these Muslims are striving to live, behave, and build relationships that prioritize the dignity of all people, inside the Muslim community and beyond.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0090.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnthropologica→Same topicReligion, Society, and Development→French-language works237,207→