Needs, Rights and Systems: Increasing Canadian Intimate Bystander Reporting on Radicalizing to Violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first people to suspect or know about someone involved in acts of violent extremism will often be those closest to them: their friends, family and community insiders. They are ideally placed to play particular roles: (a) to notice any changes or early warning signs that someone is considering violent action to harm others, and (b) to influence and facilitate vulnerable individuals to move away from violent extremist involvements. The willingness of those close to potential or suspected violent actors to come forward and share their knowledge and concerns with authorities is thus a critical element in efforts to prevent violent extremist action. This Canadian study replicates the focus and methodology of three previous Community Reporting Thresholds studies with an increased scope and sample size. Our findings highlight the ways in which Canadian community respondents framed their understanding of and engagement with reporting as intimate bystanders on someone close radicalising to violence in relation to three main domains: needs-based, rights-based and systems-based. This paper will explore what we have learned from data across three Canadian cities with a particular emphasis on how the domains of needs, rights and systems are conceptualized and enacted by Canadian respondents.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".