Bibliographic record
Abstract
Politicians engage in cover-ups all the time. One device is to use commissions as distractions, as a method for stalling or to push apparent change while allowing substantive changes to go unattended. Yet governments, in fact all Western countries, have difficulty dealing with individuals who cover their faces. Faces are masked to hide (by criminals) or to frighten (during Halloween). In some cultures, faces are sometimes covered during mourning to discourage social intercourse and encourage respect for the privacy of grieving. Normally, individuals want to read another person's face as an interpretive part of a conversation. Hence, it is no surprise that wearing a burqa that completely covers the whole body and veils the eyes, or a niqab that shows only the eyes, is controversial. 2 \nHowever, the central artifact in this chapter is neither the burqa nor the niqab, but the hijäb, which is just a headscarf. However, it also has been interpreted as a threat, but only in a few jurisdictions.3 The hijäb is a symbol of 'demarcation, distinction, exclusion and discrimination'4 between Muslim and non-Muslim, between men and women, between tradition and modernity, and between acceptance and rejection (Senior 2007). Opposition to wearing the hijäb is identified in some societies with confronting a symbol of male oppression of women and extreme Islamicism. When the hijäb is banned in schools and government institutions, that ban arguably fosters commonality and reinforces a French (or German or Turkish) identity.5 When wearing the hijäb is tolerated, as in Canada, it arguably promotes acceptance and fosters migrant integration (Eisenstadt 2007). The hijäb then becomes the symbol of that tolerance and of the underlying political culture that largely determines integration norms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".