MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2460779705 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v9n5p242

Analysis of Consequences and Ordinances of Revocation in Khula and Mubarat Divorce

2016· article· en· W2460779705 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sayed Mohammad Shahab Mirshahzadeh, Mohammad Karimi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIslamic Studies and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWifeRevocationJurisprudenceLawOrder (exchange)SociologyPsychologyPolitical scienceEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The divorce means dissolution of marriage permanent that has been done after performing divorce and since then is interrupted conjugal relationship between husband and wife, however, according to the type of divorce resulting from their work will be different. One of iqaat in Jurisprudence accepted by the man to see his wife at the time of iddah and also return women to we pay in order to possible to return the men to marriage in Khula and Mubarat divorce. In some cases challenges returning to philosophy of divorce and a kind of defeating the purpose will be done that the opportunity does not give the men. And thus the nature of divorce is irrevocable and complete separation between men and women is created. Given the importance of returning issue, this research examines the effects of works and judgments of return on Khula and Mubarat divorce. After reviewing, finally, it was concluded that there is not difference between return and its effect in Khula and Mubarat divorce and the only difference is in the nature of these two divorces. So it is necessary that this issue comprehensively reflected in the law books.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.296
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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 topicIslamic Studies and HistoryFrench-language works237,207