MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393344733 · doi:10.1080/19434472.2024.2333954

A comparative analysis of Canadian and Swedish foreign fighters

2024· article· en· W4393344733 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lorne L. Dawson, Amir Rostami, Hernan Mondani, Shandon Harris-Hogan, Amarnath Amarasingam

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
FundersVetenskapsrådet
KeywordsDemographicsRadicalizationTerrorismComparative researchPolitical scienceComparative caseCriminologyDemographyPsychologySociologyLawSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While there is a substantial research literature on Western ‘foreign fighters’ – those young men and women from Europe, North America, Australia and elsewhere who traveled to Syria and Iraq, from around 2011–2017, to join jihadist groups engaged in combat – there is a dearth of comparative studies examining the backgrounds of these fighters. National variations in the levels of recruitment have been measured and samples examined to determine the demographics of these fighters, indicating some national variations in who went, how, and maybe why. More fulsome comparative data is needed, however, to detect and measure such differences to gain insight into the factors conditioning the radicalization of these foreign fighters. Calling on original and unique datasets, this study presents the results of a comparative analysis of Canadian and Swedish foreign fighters. In each case the findings are compared with other domestic jihadists as well to delineate if those drawn to fight in Syria and Iraq differ. Clear differences emerge in the basic demographics of these national samples, highlighting some empirical and interpretive issues in need of further analysis.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.010
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political AggressionSame topicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political ViolenceFrench-language works237,207