Contesting citizenship and faith: Muslim claims-making in Canada and the United States, 2001-2008
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study analyzes the claims-making and counter-claims-making on citizenship and faith by American and Canadian Muslim political actors over the 2001-2008 period. It highlights the interactive processes by which competing discourses on citizenship and faith are negotiated to produce divergent constructions of Muslim citizenship: mainstream, liberal, secular, and progressive. Utilizing insights from theories of citizenship, collective identity and social movements, I show how divergent collective identities are produced within the same categorical group through complex interactions between: a) ideological baggage and biographies of claims-makers; b) demographic patterns of communities; c) historical tensions in the traditions and identities that are being negotiated; and d) the actual political constellations, both proximate and durable, in which such claims and counter-claims are being made. Moreover, such contests about collective identity, citizenship and faith are not only relevant for the group (American Muslim or Canadian Muslim), but also help highlight the inclusions, exclusions and blindspots in national narratives about belonging and hierarchies of obligations and how these are challenged.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".