MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388128884 · doi:10.1080/09557571.2023.2271999

Bringing back the concept of colonial pacification in the study of preventing violent extremism (PVE) practices: the case of Tunisia

2023· article· en· W4388128884 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Guendalina Simoncini

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge Review of International Affairs · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticulturalism, Politics, Migration, Gender
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPublic Safety Canada
KeywordsColonialismDominance (genetics)PersuasionPeacebuildingPoliticsPolitical scienceEconomic JusticeSociologyCriminologyLawPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article delves into the historical foundations of countering and preventing violent extremism (CVE-PVE) using contemporary Tunisia as a case study. While PVE emerged in the 2010s, representing a shift from stringent counterterrorism to a more holistic preventative strategy, it recalls colonial notions and practices. This work seeks to contextualise PVE, emphasising continuities and changes across colonial, post-colonial, and neocolonial control and prevention practices. Using a genealogical and discursive methodology, the research examines contemporary policy documents, political discourse, colonial archives and transitional justice records. Central to this exploration is the French colonial notion of pacification, which refers to the action to restore order and prevent disorder in regions resisting colonial dominance. The study sheds light on the colonial origins of present-day preventative measures such as administrative control, referral, persuasion and peacebuilding. The article posits that the concept of pacification is pivotal to understanding modern PVE practices.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.018
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge Review of International AffairsSame topicMulticulturalism, Politics, Migration, GenderFrench-language works237,207