MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320704793 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v9n2p1

The Effect of Islamic Revolution on the Muslim’s Intellectual Schools Case Study of Libya and Tunisia

2016· article· en· W2320704793 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jaseb Nikfar, Ali Mohammadi, Ali Bagheri Dolatabadi, Alireza Samiee Esfahani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Islamic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIslamVictoryIndependence (probability theory)Government (linguistics)Islamic studiesMuslim worldPoliticsPolitical scienceSocial scienceHappeningSociologyLawPolitical economyHistoryTheologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nowadays the discussion of intellectual schools in the world, especially in the north of Africa is very important for the political analysts. The intellectual roots that existed in these regions from the beginning of independence were more toward the Islam. These roots mostly revealed themselves after the victory of Islamic revolution. The formation of Iran’s Islamic revolution on the top of west and east blocks’ mutuality was a paradigm of general direction of religions and Islamic values for forming the government. This article uses description- analytic method to investigate the effects of Islamic revolution on the Muslim’s intellectual schools in the north of Africa. Two main questions are How and in what direction has the Islamic revolution happening affected the Muslim’s intellectual schools in Libya and Tunisia? Findings of the research shows that with regards to the Muslim’s intellectual backgrounds that before the Islamic revolution existed, in these countries Islamic revolution caused the reinforcement and doubled motivation for these groups. But, yet the reinforcement of the activity of these groups caused their mutuality with the government and increase of violence and insecurity.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicEducation and Islamic StudiesFrench-language works237,207