MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Why Aren't Women Sharī'a Court Judges? The Case of Syria

2010· article· en· W1994546324 on OpenAlex
Monique C. Cardinal

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIslamic Law and Society · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIslamic Studies and History
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawIslamPolitical scienceDoctrinePower (physics)Context (archaeology)Legal doctrineSociologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Women make up 14% of the judiciary in Syria and work at all levels of the ordinary courts, both civil and criminal. However, they do not hold office in the personal status courts, special courts that apply codified religious law. This essay presents all opinions, both majority and minority, that explain the legal and social reasons for the non-appointment of women to the Muslim personal status courts known as sharī'a courts. I discuss how religious texts and classical Islamic legal doctrine are used today to undermine women's judicial power and oppose their appointment to the ordinary courts. If a woman cannot act as a sharī'a court judge, then who can? I attempt to answer this all-important question within the Syrian context. The main source of data is interviews conducted with eighty judges and public prosecutors of Damascus and Aleppo between May 2004 and July 2007.

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.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.826
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.243 · 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