Bibliographic record
Abstract
Between the death of the Prophet and the first quarter of the second century of the Hijra (ca. 632–740 ad ), Islam witnessed a major evolution in the relationship between the body politic and the law. Until the 80s/700s, the main representatives of the legal profession were the proto- qāḍī s, who, for all intents and purposes, were not only government employees and administrators of sorts but also laymen who – despite their experience in adjudication – had no particular legal training. As we saw in chapter 2, their appointments as qāḍī s were most often conjoined with the functions of tax-collectors, provincial secretaries of the treasury, police chiefs or story-tellers. In these capacities, they functioned as the provincial governor's assistants, if not – on rare occasions – as governors-cum- qāḍī s. In the near absence of a class of private, legal specialists at this time, these proto- qāḍī s constituted the bulk of what may be termed a legal profession, and as such they were an integral part of the ruling machine. During this phase, then, no noticeable distinction can be made between government and law, since both functions resided in the same hands. Yet, despite the formal inseparability of the proto- qāḍī 's office from that of government administration, the government did not always enjoy the prerogative of determining what law was applied. As shown in chapter 2, the proto- qāḍī s adjudicated cases on the basis of their raʾy , which was based in turn on either a sunna māḍiya (past exemplary actions, including those of the Prophet and the caliphs) or commonsense.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".