MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2193351367 · doi:10.15453/0191-5096.3604

Peace and War in the Qur'an and Juridical Literature: A Comparative Perspective

2011· article· en· W2193351367 on OpenAlexaff
Liyakat Takim

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIslamPeaceful coexistenceDiversity (politics)Context (archaeology)Period (music)Perspective (graphical)LawShariaAbsolute (philosophy)SociologyCONQUESTPolitical scienceReligious studiesEpistemologyPhilosophyHistoryTheologyAestheticsAncient historyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Qur'anic period of Islamic history took place in a social context of significant diversity. A number of important verses in the Qur'an reflect this diversity and encourage Islamic believers to seek peaceful coexistence with those of other faiths, especially those designated as "people of the Book," specifically Christians, Jews and Sabeans. In the later classical period of Islamic history, the exegesis of Islamic jurists markedly de-emphasized peaceful coexistence in favor of interpretations encouraging conquest and religious uniformity. Although the classical jurists have exercised enormous interpretive authority in subsequent Islamic history, their authority was never understood to be absolute or equal to the authority of the Qur'an itself. It is the challenge for Muslims in contemporary times to recover the authority of Qur'anic verses encouraging peaceful coexistence and respect for human diversity, not merely as a social strategy, but as an integral devotional aspect of better understanding the God who transcends all human understanding.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0100.011
Science and technology studies0.0130.036
Scholarly communication0.0140.010
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations14
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sociology & Social WelfareSame topicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political ViolenceFrench-language works237,207