MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416955488 · doi:10.1111/jssr.70012

Policing (Im)Modesty in Modest Fashion: Islamic Feminist Renegotiations of Modesty in Influencer Culture

2025· article· en· W4416955488 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Inaash Islam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for the Scientific Study of Religion · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Feminism, and Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfluencer marketingIslamNegotiationComplicityFeminismEthnography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This article examines how Muslimah influencers based in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom are policed for, and negotiate with the policing of their Islamic modesty in influencer culture. Data come from interviews with 14 Muslimah influencers, and a survey distributed amongst 188 self‐identified followers of Muslim female influencers. Findings show that Muslimah influencers are policed by their followers, fellow modest fashion participants, and sometimes their families for prioritizing their nafs (self), violating Islamic principles of awrah (covering of private parts), and inviting their sexualization by others through the pursuit of influencer celebrity. Data show that Muslimah influencers respond to this policing through Islamic feminist Ijtihād (critical reasoning), positing their aesthetic labor as a form of dawah (proselytizing). This article argues that Muslimah influencers operate as ‘pious critical agents’ who employ Islamic feminism to broaden understandings of modesty as it operates in the lived realities of Muslim women in anti‐Muslim contexts.

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)0.006
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0110.021
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for the Scientific Study of ReligionSame topicGender, Feminism, and MediaFrench-language works237,207