“Friends, Partners, Allies” at a Crossroad : A comparative analysis of Canada, the United States, and Islamic State-affiliated citizen repatriation from Northeast Syria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the 2019 territorial defeat of the Islamic State (IS) in northeastern Syria, thousands of foreign nationals affiliated with the Islamic militant group have been detained in refugee camps and prisons in the region - the humanitarian conditions of which have come under increased scrutiny. As a result, the repatriation of these individuals has become a contentious migration-related policy issue and has led to diverse state responses. In the North American context, there is a striking contrast between Canada’s ‘passive’ approach and the United States’ ‘active’ role in these repatriation efforts. Through a comparative critical discourse analysis (CDA) using Fairclough’s methodological three-step framework and Balzacq’s sociological securitization theory, the public rationale of Canadian-American policy diversion is explored. As a result, this study contributes new knowledge to the field, providing unique insights on how and why two closely-allied countries justify their engagement with IS- affiliated citizens in fundamentally different ways.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".