MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7103663460

Encounters Between Violence and Media| Remembering January 29: The Québec City Mosque Shootings and the Struggle for Recognition

2023· article· en· W7103663460 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInvisibilitySympathyTragedy (event)Interpersonal violenceEmpathyVisibility
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On January 29, 2017, a gunman strode into the grand mosque in Québec City, Canada, and opened fire on the congregation, killing six and injuring 19 Muslims. The tragedy was widely covered in the local, national, and international media. In addition to providing details about the victims and the perpetrator, most of the immediate coverage focused on the outpouring of sympathy and empathy for the victims’ families and communities. The visibility of this performance of support contrasts sharply with the invisibility of state-sanctioned structural and interpersonal violence that Muslims continue to encounter in Québec on a daily basis. This article focuses on Muslim communities’ call for the recognition of the escalating violence of Islamophobia, paying particular attention to the Remember January 29 digital campaigns and memorial posts on various websites. The article argues that the digital campaigns contributed to the Canadian nation’s recognition of January 29 as a day of commemoration.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0340.010
Scholarly communication0.0090.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.283
GPT teacher head0.540
Teacher spread0.257 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political ViolenceFrench-language works237,207