Societal fit and radicalisation: Poorly managed absorption of immigrants and poor fit between the society of origin and the host society as predisposing factors to radicalisation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two variables hypothesized to be relevant to the radicalisation of immigrants are examined. The first one is the degree to which the host society makes them feel welcome and helps them fill a role in society-at-large, which facilitates their integration. A comparison is offered between European societies on the one hand, and long-standing immigration countries such as the US, Australia, and Canada on the other hand. It is argued that a significant ingredient is that the latter do not define themselves as nation-states, and, on the whole, define belonging to the nation as independent of descent. The second variable is the fit between the culture of origin of the immigrant and that of the host country. It has been shown that adjustment is a function of that fit. In individualistic countries, people with an allocentric orientation tend to be poorly adjusted, whereas the reverse is true in collectivist countries, where the ones with an idiocentric orientation are at a disadvantage. This has implications for people from an Islamic background coming to a nation with a Western culture.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".