An Overview of the Principles of Jurisprudence Vis-A-Vis Legal Maxim
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Principles of Jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh) is a well-known science in the field of Shari’ah. Almost all institutions in Malaysia offering Islamic Studies in the field of Shari’ah make The Principles of Jurisprudence as compulsory course that must be taken by each candidate. This is due to the Principles of Jurisprudence dealing with crucial matters such as al-Dalil al-Ijmali (Comprehensive Proof), istinbat (derivation of rulings from nas (text) and debates related to ijtihad (the exertion of the utmost effort by a trained jurist). This study using both descriptive and analytical methods concludes that the Science of the Principles of Jurisprudence is extremely important for it equip the researcher with a clearer and deeper understanding of the Arabic speech rather than its linguistic sense and superficial meaning. Hence, the Principles of Jurisprudence is an absolute requirement for proper understanding of the Shari’ah, hence, derivation of rulings.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".