M. I<scp>ZZI</scp> D<scp>IEN</scp>, <i>The Theory and the Practice of Market Law in Medieval Islam: A Study of</i> Kitab Nisab al-Ihtisab <i>of</i><sup>⊂</sup><i>Umar b. Muhammad al-Sunami</i> (Cambridge: Gibb Memorial Trust, 1997), Pp. 254. $99 cloth.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a confused and confusing book. The subtitle clearly suggests that the monograph is a study of Nisab al-Ihtisab, a treatise on hisba written by the subcontinental Hanafite jurist Sunami. It turns out, however, that the monograph is for the most part a disappointing translation, with an even more disappointing short Introduction, which hardly constitutes a study. The first and longest section (eight pages of the Introduction) raises a number of questions about authorship, all of which are answered in a cursory and far less than satisfactory manner. The sections that follow, all of which are very short, deal with Sunami's education, social milieu, and presentation of the text. Thereafter, in the space of no more than two pages, the “value of the work” is considered, and this is followed by a chronological list of “known hisba treatises.” The issue of theory and practice, implicitly raised in the title, is addressed in fewer than two pages, and poorly at that, considering how fundamental an issue this is. In sum, little in this Introduction constitutes, properly speaking, a study of the text. At best, it provides background information about the treatise and its author, although it does so in a not altogether organized, thorough, or systematic fashion.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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".