MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058419690 · doi:10.1177/0008429811420408

The Shi'i Concept of Imamate and Leadership in Contemporary Iran

2011· article· fr· W2058419690 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Adel Hashemi-Najafabadi

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIslamic Studies and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesMeaning (existential)Legal guardianSociologyPhilosophyEthnologyPolitical scienceEpistemologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Imamate is one of the most important pillars in Twelver Shi’ism. However, its meaning has been greatly debated by religious modernists in recent years. In this article, the Iranian religious modernists' position on the concept of the Imamate, in contrast to the traditional view, is expounded. In addition, this work presents the major critical remarks of the religious modernists on the theory of Velayat-e Faqih (guardianship of the jurist), as an implementation of the concept of Imamate, which is in practice in contemporary Iran. L’Imamat est l’un des piliers les plus importants dans le chiisme duodécimain. Toutefois, sa signification a été grandement débattu par les modernistes religieux dans ces dernières années. Dans cet article, la position des modernistes religieux iraniens sur le concept de l’Imamat, contrairement à la vision traditionnelle, est exposée. En outre, cet ouvrage présente les remarques principales critiques des modernistes religieux sur la théorie du velayat-e faqih (la tutelle du juriste), comme une mise en œuvre du concept de l’Imamat, qui est en pratique dans l’Iran contemporain.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.010
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.486
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.108 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations15
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Religion/Sciences ReligieusesSame topicIslamic Studies and HistoryFrench-language works237,207