MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366987726 · doi:10.29173/psur351

Wrong Question: Can Islam and Democracy Coexist?

2023· article· en· W4366987726 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jana Elsalhy

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitical Science Undergraduate Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIslamic Studies and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIslamDemocracyAssertionOrientalismPolitical scienceSociologyEpistemologyLawPhilosophyTheologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Debates about whether Islam and democracy are compatible have been dominated by the most polarizing Orientalist and Islamist opinions. This paper discusses why the question of their compatibility is the wrong question to ask; the assertion that Islam and democracy are intrinsically oppositional prioritizes the most fundamentalist and essentialized understandings of Islam and democracy. Instead, a more appropriate discussion surrounds the conditions under which Muslim-majority nations can and do employ certain democratic practices given that neither understanding of Islam or democracy are monolithic. There are Islam(s) and democrac(ies) as there are multiple contextual practices and comprehensions of Islam and democracy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.329 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolitical Science Undergraduate ReviewSame topicIslamic Studies and HistoryFrench-language works237,207