MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967101094 · doi:10.2478/jriss-2013-0006

The Ottoman Model in Jerusalem, the Common Capital of All Religions

2012· article· en· W1967101094 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ahmed Akgündüz

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rotterdam Islamic and Social Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchaeology and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranquillityQuarter (Canadian coin)Ancient historySovereigntyState (computer science)HistoryCapital (architecture)Capital cityPeriod (music)Political scienceLawGeographyArchaeologyArtPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Muslim Quarter “As Jerusalem was a sacred town for not only the Muslims but also the Christians and the Jews, it was visited by a colossal number of visitors from all over the world during the sovereignty of the Ottomans as has the case ever been. We will explore this fact with many firmans by Ottoman Sultans. During the reigning era of the Ottomans there used to be four large quarters in Jerusalem. In the northeast thereof was located the , where were found the Town Hall, Masjid Al-Aqsa and Sahra Al-Mukaddasa (the Holy Desert). In the northwest was the During the period of Ottoman State, the holy places pertaining to Christians, Muslims and Jews have been explained and described according Ottoman Archives. If lesson is derived from history, there certainly exist ways out of the crisis of Jerusalem. Our proposal is to return those days of peace and tranquillity by setting forth, with some additions, from the Ottoman Model that had been successfully practiced for 450 years.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rotterdam Islamic and Social SciencesSame topicArchaeology and Historical StudiesFrench-language works237,207