MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989628866 · doi:10.1558/cis.v6i1-2.23

Scripture Wars: Contemporary Polemical Discourses of Bible Versus Quran on the Internet

2011· article· en· W1989628866 on OpenAlexaff
F. V. Greifenhagen

Bibliographic record

VenueComparative Islamic Studies · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedia, Religion, Digital Communication
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelation (database)ScholarshipServantLiteraturePhilosophyIslamTheologyArtLawPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article argues that on-line polemical discourse between Muslims and Christians deserves not to be dismissed but rather careful examination and analysis. To this end, it engages in the process of describing, categorizing and characterizing online polemical sources dealing with the Quran and the Bible in relation to each other. After a brief consideration of the nature of polemic, and of the themes of past Muslim-Christian polemic, three particular cases are examined in some detail: the suffering servant passage in Isaiah 53, the quranic story of the angels prostrating to Adam, and the meanings of surah 112. In conclusion, some effects of the existence and use of on-line polemic on teaching and scholarship on the Bible and the Quran are considered.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score0.636

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.479
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.118 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComparative Islamic StudiesSame topicMedia, Religion, Digital CommunicationFrench-language works237,207