MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2335287074 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v9n2p163

Kinds of Physical Subtraction in Islamic Jurisprudence and Iranian Law

2016· article· en· W2335287074 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ali Khalaphi, Mohammad Roshan, Ebrahim Taghizadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIslamic Studies and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFoundation (evidence)PatienceLawMeaning (existential)JurisprudencePower (physics)PsychologySociologyPolitical scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It must be said that the family foundation is based on agreement, dedication, recognition of others rights and to respect them, observing the principle of sacrifice and patience in adversity. If a couple could not compromise with each other, regardless of its reason, this important foundation will be decomposed and agreement in family will strengthen the power of family. By provocation of differences, family will lose its function and disagreements will show up that may lead to divorce. In Iran legal system, the only foundation that can be said has similarities with physical separation, is the foundation of ‘Uddah’ after revocable divorce. In the period of said ‘Uddah’, the couple has some responsibilities of marriage, but there is no force of coexistence and coition. Special docility with meaning of responding to sexual needs of couple is not among the joint task.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.070
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 Law→Same topicIslamic Studies and History→French-language works237,207→