Female Suicide Bombings: A Critical Gender Approach. By Tanya Narozhna and W. Andy Knight (University of Toronto Press, 2016, 280 pp. £32.99 pbk)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Female Suicide Bombings: A Critical Gender Approach, Tanya Narozhna and W. Andy Knight, drawing on a combination of feminist and post-colonial approaches, present an alternative reading of female suicide bombings by shedding light on the discursive violence in mainstream/malestream research and reconceptualizing female suicide bombings in social relational terms. This book is an intriguing exploration of how mainstream problem-solving analyses are entangled with the political ambitions of hegemonic masculine states, and thus inherently politicized, gendered and gendering in nature. The central premise for the authors is that the Oriental images of female perpetrators of suicide bombings provide a fertile analytical ground for examining the interwovenness of gender, race, agency, violence and oppressive structures. They employed discourse analysis of secondary texts as the primary methodological tool to back up the claim, identify and dismantle how different meanings and symbols of female suicide bombings are strategically constructed for the discursive reproduction of gendered identities and (post)colonial subjectivity with an inordinate focus on Western counterterrorism.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.006 |
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".