MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7160242491 · doi:10.69513/ilcr.v3.i2.a5

Tracing the Lexicon of War: A Diachronic NLP Study of Iraqi Newspapers (1980–2025)

2025· article· W7160242491 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIraqi Literary and Cultural Review (ILCR) · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComputational and Text Analysis Methods
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLexiconNewspaperCollocation (remote sensing)GloryVictoryTracingLexicalizationArabic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: This article uses natural language processing (NLP) to trace how Iraqi newspapers have spoken about war, peace, and the nation from 1980 to 2025. Drawing on a diachronic corpus of Arabic press texts that spans the Iran–Iraq War, the 1991 Gulf War, sanctions, the 2003 invasion, sectarian conflict, the fight against ISIS, and the fragile “post-war” present, it asks how the lexicon of war evolves and how imaginaries of nation and peace appear and recede across these crises. Methods: The study compiles a 12-million-word corpus from three major Iraqi newspapers, sampled at five-year intervals. After cleaning and normalisation, the corpus is segmented into eight historical periods. Using word-frequency analysis, collocation measures, and word-embedding models, the article tracks shifts in the usage and semantic neighbourhoods of keywords such as ḥarb (war), salām (peace), waṭan (homeland), shaʿb (people), and amān (security). Results: The analysis shows that the lexicon of war is not static: terms of victory and glory dominant in the 1980s gradually give way to vocabularies of siege, sanctions, and martyrdom in the 1990s, and later to the language of sectarianism, terrorism, and reconstruction after 2003. Quantitatively, ḥarb remains more frequent than salām in every period—for example, 420 vs. 36 tokens per million in 1980–1984 and 310 vs. 82 in 2015–2025—so that the salām:ḥarb ratio almost triples from 0.09 to 0.26 over the corpus. References to “peace” rise after 2014 but are often collocated with terms such as “fragile,” “conditional,” and “agreement,” signalling an anxious rather than triumphant peace. Conclusions: The findings illustrate how diachronic NLP complements close reading by uncovering patterns of continuity and change that event-specific analysis often misses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.881
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.347 · 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