Right-wing extremist threats to Australia in the context of the Christchurch terrorist attack
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis seeks to examine whether the Christchurch terror attack in New Zealand in 2019 constituted a failure in Australia’s counter-terrorism strategy. A comparative case study analysis was undertaken of the Five Eyes (FVEY) countries’ counter-terrorism strategies to evaluate their effectiveness in mitigating RWE terrorism between 2014 and 2020. The findings revealed that Australia and New Zealand were slower to take action against the RWE threat, in contrast to the UK and Canada, and to a lesser extent, the US. Australia’s slowness was, in part, due to its complacency, given that Australia had not experienced any significant RWE attacks, unlike the US, UK and Canada. Another reason for Australia’s slowness was because of its disproportionate focus on Islamist extremist terrorism, driven by the predominantly anti-Muslim terrorism discourse of some mainstream politicians. The thesis also explores what Australia could do to counter the growing RWE threat.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it