Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ijtihadi method of Quranic exegesis is one of the popular and proper methods of interpretation of religious texts. It is superior to the methods of subjective opinion (tafsīr bi al-raʾy) and narrative exegesis, and possesses many positive features and applications. These features, which are results of the evolution and comprehensiveness of ijtihadi exegesis as well as the multidisciplinary approach, have led to favourable reception of this method among Muslim exegetes. With a focus on the exegesis by Shaykh Ṭūsī, founder of the ijtihadi approach, exegetes have developed necessary conditions for using the method. These include jurisprudential, ethical, academic, and, most importantly in this approach, rational conditions. Muslim exegetes have provided valid reasons for ijtihadi tafsir including Quranic, narrative, and conventional rationales as well as the argument for the necessity of ijtihadi tafsir and the fact that it was an early method utilised by exegetes. Each of these rationales differ in their manner of presentation. However, all exegetes are unanimous that ijtihadi tafsir is permissible.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".