MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406228748 · doi:10.1080/21565503.2024.2444897

The political power of Muslim social capital in Europe and North America

2025· article· en· W4406228748 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aubrey L. Westfall

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitics Groups and Identities · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Capital and Networks
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial capitalEmbeddednessMainstreamPoliticsCivic engagementPolitical economyPolitical capitalSocial engagementSociologyGroup cohesivenessPower (physics)Political scienceSocial mobilitySocial scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The social lives of Muslims living in the West are often regarded with suspicion, based on the assumption that social embeddedness within a Muslim community compromises more widespread integration and social cohesion. This article tests these claims by examining the relationship between Muslim social capital and political participation. Using original data from 2,341 Muslims in Canada, France, Germany, the UK, and the US, it finds that Muslim structural, cognitive, and civic social capital all support political participation. Within structural capital, both bonding and bridging networks are positively associated with mainstream political activities, but bonding networks predict protest activities. Very few indicators of social capital share a negative relationship with participation, and the two that do (trust in the government, size of close friend group) only suppress protest, which may suggest that they capture civic satisfaction. There are some national-level differences in political participation after controlling for other variables, but not many, suggesting similar mechanisms mobilize and facilitate Muslim political participation across national contexts. These findings should be a relief those who are concerned that Muslim networks are encouraging withdrawal.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.698

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolitics Groups and IdentitiesSame topicSocial Capital and NetworksFrench-language works237,207