Examination of the Views of Juynboll Concerning Qur'anic Sciences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Qurʾanic studies examines issues related to understanding of the Qurʾan. The orientalist Juynboll has examined some of the most important topics in Qurʾanic studies including revelation, collection, and recitation of the Qurʾan. The present study evaluates his ideas concerning these issues. This library study takes an analytic and critical approach to the topic at hand. Descriptive methods are also utilised. Though examination of the views of Juynboll concerning Qurʾanic sciences is the focus of this endeavour, the views of Muslim scholars are also considered for completion of the study. Through examination of Juynboll’s views on Qurʾanic sciences, it is clear that he has conducted significant research on Islamic sources. However, his use of weak (<em>ḍaʿīf</em>) Islamic narratives has led to errors in some areas of the Qurʾanic sciences.</p>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".