The Compatibility between the Quran and Modern Science: A Comparative Study among Malaysian
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper reports a study which was conducted among 644 respondents from the age of 20 to the age of 55 in Malaysia. The respondents, male and female were obtained randomly throughout the country, from different ethnic and religious backgrounds. The respondents were given booklet of questionnaire containing statements about the relation between the Quran and science. The statements were provided with responses in the form of Likert scale ranging from 1. (Strongly disagree), 2. (Disagree), 3. (Not sure), 4. (Agree), and 5. (Strongly agree). The data was analysed to obtain the mean, percentages, and the difference of means were tested using the t-test and one-Way ANOVA. The results of the study show that 66.9% of the respondents accepted the statement that the Quran is compatible with modern science. 12.6% rejected the statement and 20.5% was not sure. There were difference of means of the responses of the respondents based on their religion and the difference of mean was significant.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".