Observations of the popularity and religious significance of blood-cupping (al-hijāma) as an Islamic medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Popular treatment of ailments and illnesses based on the Qur’ān and the Sunna of the Prophet Muḥammad continue to be practised in the Muslim world owing to their religious inspiration. It is not uncommon to find shops dedicated to selling different types of honey because the Qur’ān specifies that “in it is healing for mankind” [1], or for customers to purchase black seed oil on the basis of the ḥadīth that “it is a cure for everything but death” [2,3]. The belief of being possessed by a jinn , often as a result of black magic still prevails, especially for those whose ailments conventional medicine has fallen short of curing. Healers who recite the Qur’ān are often consulted to remove the jinn and annul any spells that may have been cast. In the context of the Qur’ānic and prophetic remedies that exist, taking into consideration the growing interest in complementary medicine, ḥijāma too has gained its fair share of attention as a credible religiously-rooted form of therapy for a wide range of diseases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".