MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2474352718 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v9n7p9

Main Reasons against Unnatural Marriage and Its Wreckful Role in the Institution of Marriage and Family

2016· article· en· W2474352718 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rasoul Rasolipour, Mohammd Roshan, Shapour Nikandam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMarriage and Sexual Relationships
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNatural (archaeology)InstitutionNatural lawSociologyFoundation (evidence)Ten CommandmentsSame sexPsychologyLawGender studiesSocial psychologyPolitical scienceSocial scienceHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>The role of marriage and family strengthening with regard to religious commandments and ethics is not concealed from people who follow the divine commands and basic teachings of the Holy books and prophets. However, nowadays in many western societies, the principles of natural marriage are violated. The new forms of marriage are called abnormal, unnatural, and unusual forms of marriage among individuals including the same or opposite sex. Unnatural marriage can’t be classified as a natural and legal contract. Note that both natural and unnatural forms of marriage have their own principles. Therefore, the recent research aims at analyzing the main reasons against unnatural marriage using analytical and library methods with regard to the fact that unnatural marriage has threatened standard marriage and family foundation. In this research, we rely on verses of Quran. All the data have been gathered by experts in the field of family affairs especially those who witnessed homosexual marriage and observed both personal and social difficulties of homosexual individuals. </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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.628
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, 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 LawSame topicMarriage and Sexual RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207