Kualitas Hidup Menurut Tafsir Nusantara: Baldatun Thayyibatun wa Rabbun Ghafûr dalam Tafsir Marâh Labîd, Tafsir Al-Azhar, Tafsir An-Nûr, Tafsir Departemen Agama, dan Tafsir Al-Mishbâh [Quality of Life in Tafsir Nusantara: Baldatun Thayyibatun wa Rabbun Ghafûr in Tafsir Marâh Labîd, Tafsir Al-Azhar, Tafsir An-Nûr, Tafsir Departemen Agama, and Tafsir Al-Mishbâh]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article analyzed the phrase “baldatun thayyibatun wa rabbun ghafur”, one of main keywords in Islamic quality of life research, with reference to the interpretations given by tafsir nusantara i.e. Marâh Labid, Tafsir An Nur, Tafsir Al-Azhar, Al Qur’ân dan Tafsirnya, and Tafsir Al-Mishbâh. The phrase “baldatun thayyibatun wa rabbun ghafur” was chosen because of its relation with the concept of civilized and sustainable society as UII research orientation, while the selection of tafsir nusantara was driven by the current tendency in research and implementation of local genius both in UII and the Ministry of Religious Affairs. The method used in this article was comparative method (muqârin) aimed to compare the interpretations given by some interpreters on the phrase and then linked to the concept of quality of life that has been widely studied. The results showed that the quality of life, as tafsir nusantara noted, had several aspects such as nature and its resources; fulfillment of basic needs; support and the ability to manage irrigation facilities; advancement in transportation; security in many activities; freedom in economic activities; international trade; religious conditions; commitment to maintain public facilities ; closeness with family etc. A number of aspects of interpretation found in tafsir nusantara has some conformity with the conceptual framework prepared by the Quality of Life Research Unit, University of Toronto. Further research is needed to examine the concepts of quality of life for other terms mentioned in the Koran as the foundation of the development of this study in the future.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".