VIM: A Platform for Violent Intent Modeling
Radical and contentious activism may or may not evolve into violent behavior depending on contextual factors related to social, political, cultural and infrastructural conditions. Significant theoretical advances have been made in understanding these contextual factors and the import of their interrelations. However, there has been relatively little progress in the development of processes and capabilities that leverage such theoretical advances to automate the anticipatory analysis of violent intent. In this paper, we describe a framework that implements such processes and capabilities, and discuss the implications of using the resulting system to assess the emergence of radicalization leading to violence.
KeywordsSocial Movement Violent Behavior Content Extraction Intelligence Analysis Muslim Brotherhood
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Al-Sayyid, M. K. (2003) The other Face of the Islamist Movement. Carnegie Paper No. 33, January 2003. Available at http://www.carnegieendowment.org.
- 2.Bocca, G, (1978) Il terrorismo italiano, Rizzoli, Milano.Google Scholar
- 3.McAdam, D., S. Tarrow, C. Tilly (2001) Dynamics of Contention. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- 4.Hermann, M. G. (2003) Assessing leadership style: Trait analysis. In Jerrold M. Post (Ed.) The Psychological Assessment of Political Leaders: With Profiles of Saddam Hussein and Bill Clinton, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
- 5.Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P., & Streufert, S. (1992). Conceptual/integrative complexity. In C.P. Smith (Ed.) Motivation and Personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis. Cambridge, EnglandCambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 8.START: The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terror. University of Maryland. http://www.start.umd.edu.
- 9.Sticha, P., Buede, D. and Rees, R. (2005) APOLLO: An Analytical Tool for Predicting a Subject's Decision-making. Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Intelligence Analysis, McLean, VA.Google Scholar
- 10.Chaturvedi, A., Purdue University, D. Dolk, R. Chaturvedi, M. Mulpuri, D. Lengacher, S. Mellema, P. Poddar, C. Foong,and B. Armstrong, (2005) Understanding Insurgency by Using Agent-based Computational Experimentation: Case Study of Indonesia. Proceedings of the Agent 2005 Conference on Generative Social Processes, Models and Mechanisms, Chicago, IL, pp. 781–799.Google Scholar
- 12.Heuer, R.J.Jr. (1999) Psychology of Intelligence Analysis. Center for the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- 13.McCarthy, J. D. and Mayer N. Zald (2001) The Enduring Vitality of the Resource Mobilization Theory of Social Movements in Jonathan H. Turner (ed.), Handbook of Sociological Theory, pp.535–65.Google Scholar
- 14.Costa, P.T. & McCrae, R.R. (1985) The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
- 15.Young, M.D. (2001) Building worldview(s) with Profiler+. In M.D. West (ed.), Applications of computer content analysis. Westport, CTAblex.Google Scholar
- 16.Shapiro, A. and Niederhauser, D. (2004). Learning from hypertext: research issues and findings. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology, 2nd Ed., pp. 605–620. Mahwah, NJErlbaum.Google Scholar
- 19.Tergan, S. O. (2004). Concept maps for managing individual knowledge. Proceedings of the First Joint Meeting of the EARLI SIGS, pp. 229–238.Google Scholar
- 20.Sanfilippo, A., A.J. Cowell, S. Tratz, A. Boek, A.K. Cowell, C Posse, and L. Pouchard (2007) Content Analysis for Proactive Intelligence: Marshaling Frame Evidence. Proceeding of the AAAI Conference. Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 22–26, 2007.Google Scholar