Self‐representation and future perception of youth followed by a specialized intervention team in violent radicalization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In response to the increase in ideological and non‐ideological mass killings, mental health professionals are beginning to invest in prevention and intervention in violent radicalization situations. The psychological and psychiatric literature proposes multiple psychological theories describing the individual factors at play in the process of violent radicalization: loss of meaning, responses to humiliation, dehumanization of the other as well as serious identity problems are often mentioned, but little is known about the self‐representation of individuals attracted or involved in violent radicalization. This qualitative study aims at giving a sense of the complexity and texture of the experience of radicalized youth (18–30 years old), followed by a specialized clinic in Quebec (Canada). Ten patients, 18–30 years old, a significant age group for identity formation, were recruited for the study. An art‐based method (self‐portrait with a collage) and a projective testing method (the Thematic Apperception Test) were used to elicit the psychic representations of the patient about their identity and document their time perception. The results show that idealization and devaluation processes are central to these patients' self‐representation and are associated with adverse childhood experiences. Regarding time perception, many participants were spontaneously drawn toward a nostalgic past, manifesting significant difficulties in anchoring themselves in the present and imagining a future. These results confirm the vulnerability of this clientele and show that the projective art‐based methods are perceived as more soothing than threatening. Clinical implications, tools and approaches to help evaluate and intervene with radicalized youth are discussed.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".