MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1835982321

Konsep Progress dan Hukum Islam1 (Noel J. Coulson)

2012· article· id· W1835982321 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amhar Rasyid

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovatio · 2012
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Studies and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArtPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

N .J. Coulson adalah seorang guru besar hukum Islam kenamaan di Barat. Bukunya yang terkenal adalah A History of Islamic Law (Sejarah Hukum Islam), Edinburgh University Press, 1964. Dan ia juga telah menulis banyak artikel mengenai sejarah hukum Islam. Khusus artikel ini, penulis mengcopynya pada waktu menyelesaikan S2 di McGill University, Canada tahun 1994. Dalam terbitan jurnal Innovatio kali ini, penerjemah sengaja melakukan (barangkali) terjemahan ulang dan menyadurnya pada beberapa bahagian yang dianggap penting. Nilai pentingnya, menurut pengamatan penerjemah sebagai dosen Tarikh Tasyri’ di IAIN STS Jambi, bukan terletak pada sekedar menyimak ide-ide guru besar tersebut, tetapi lebih untuk melihat bagaimana ia menilai hukum Islam pada masa-masa awal serta bagaimana perkembangan selanjutnya pada zamannya, dan bagaimana seorang sejarawan hukum memiliki perspektif dan metodologi yang berbeda. Tentu saja isi, data dan tahun dalam buku ini telah jauh berbeda dari apa yang sekarang terjadi di dunia Islam umumnya dan Timur Tengah khususnya, namun sebagai buku sejarah ada beberapa hal yang patut secara akademis untuk diketahui dan direnungi. Dengan demikian, pembaca diharapkan akan mendapatkan pandangan bahwa ada bahagian-bahagian dalam hukum Islam yang telah melangkah jauh maju kedepan di berbagai negeri Muslim, disamping juga ada yang berjalan di tempat karena berbagai faktor: sosial, politik, dan kekuatan tarik menarik modernis-tradisionalis. Yang perlu diingat, kata Bung Karno, adalah jangan sekali-kali melupakan sejarah.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovatioSame topicLegal Studies and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207