The Quran as Intertext: A Critical Reflection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this critical study was to objectively put the Qur’an in an interpretive framework using intertextuality as a methodological tool and look at this holy book from the perspective of the text as intertext. First, the Qur’an was considered as the specific feature of Islam and whether it is God’s word or not. Then, some definitions of Islam were given and some Islamic themes such as creation, Day of Judgment, and paradise and hell shared between different holy texts were compared intertextually. Finally, to put the Qur’an into a broader framework, it was tried to discuss about its strength in terms of miracle both from the perspectives of meaning and form. Key words: Intertextuality; The Qur’an; Miracle; Meaning; Form Resume Le but de cette etude critique a ete objectivement mis le Coran dans un cadre d'interpretation en utilisant l'intertextualite comme un outil methodologique et de regarder ce livre sacre dans la perspective du texte comme intertexte. Premierement, le Coran a ete considere comme la caracteristique specifique de l'Islam et si elle est la parole de Dieu ou non. Puis, quelques definitions de l'islam ont ete donnes et certains themes islamiques telles que la creation, Jour du Jugement, et le paradis et l'enfer partage entre les differents textes sacres ont ete compares intertextuellement. Enfin, pour mettre le Coran dans un cadre plus large, il a ete tente pour discuter de sa force en termes de miracle a la fois du point de vue du sens et de forme. Mots cles : Intertextualite; le Coran; Miracle; Signification; Forme
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 | 0.028 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".