The Real Estate Market in Jerusalem between Muslims and Christians (1800-1810)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The stable political situation in Jerusalem during the Ottoman Era contributed to the increase in economic activities in the city. Those economic transactions included all religious groups in Jerusalem such as Muslims, Jews and Christians. In spite of the division of Jerusalem into quarters based on the religious affiliation such as the Muslim quarter, Jewish neighbourhood, and Christian neighbourhood, neither quarter was devoted exclusively to a specific religious group. For instance, the Muslims lived in Christian quarters and Jewish people lived in Muslim quarters and vice versa. Such quarter relations among the people from the three aforementioned religions contributed to the development of intertwined economic relations that served their personal economic interests despite of religious differences. The current study aims at examining the sale transactions that are available at the Jerusalem Legislative Court in the nineteenth century shows that the real estate transactions between Muslims and Christians in Christian quarters were very active. This study aims also finding out if there were any religious reasons behind those real estate transactions. That is, was it in the best interest of the Muslims to convert Christian quarters to Muslims ones? Or was it in the best interest of Christians aiming at eliminating the Muslim existence in those quarters by buying all their real estate in an attempt to change the neighbourhood into a Christian one? Or, was the main goal behind all those transactions purely financial gains and they were not motivated by religious incentives? This study will investigate and study this issue through the examination and analysis of all the sales transactions that are available at the Jerusalem Legislative Court. That is, a thorough statistical analysis of all those real estate transactions types will be conducted to find answers to the above questions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".