MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1794832172 · doi:10.5539/ass.v11n26p323

The Applicability of Prophet Muhammad’s Strategies in his Battles and Campaigns in Modern Business

2015· article· en· W1794832172 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohamed Sulaiman, Abdul Kadir Othman, Moussa Larbani, Izhairi Ismail, Daniel Yusoff, Muhammad Iskandar Hamzah

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOfficerHarmOrder (exchange)ManagementStrategic managementChief executive officerBusinessPublic relationsSociologyMarketingPolitical scienceLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The choice of strategy is prudently done by top managers and business strategists in order to maintain the company’s survival, sustainability and achievement of its mission and objectives. This study attempts to examine the applicability of the specific Prophet Muhammad’s strategies in his battles and campaigns in modern business. Eight Prophet’s strategies were tested that comprise (1) jihad, (2) swiftness, (3) steadfast (al-sabirun) (4) vigorous image, (5) harm prevention, (6) hijrah (migration), (7) peace (al-silmi) and (8) dynamic. Eight respondents consisting of four managing directors, three chief executive officers and one chief operating officer of SMEs in Malaysia who are in the role of strategizing their companies participated in this study. The study found that all of the eight strategies are applicable and being practiced in modern business. This paper opens a new direction of research, discovering the strategic management framework in the of Prophet Muhammad’s war strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social Science→Same topicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies→French-language works237,207→