Features of Oppression and Wastage Resulting in Liability in the Law and Jurisprudence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The subject of oppression and wastage and liability arising from it, involve a significant part of the relationship between human beings with each other and the relationship between natural and legal persons. This has long been the most important issues and has been subjected to human, and in Islamic jurisprudence considered as the cause and contraption of liability; such a way that sometimes acceptance actions (oppression) and sometimes deprivation actions (wastage) caused harm to others. In law and religion, the rule of acceptance and denial actions has been explicitly stated. However, there are some cases as well which no special rule has been stated for them but in majority cases, omission or doing an action to stave off the losses from other is necessary. So it is necessary the aspects related to this topic to be explained properly. Hence, this question arises, what are the features of oppression and wastage led to liability in jurisprudence and consequently the rights derived from it? Although in the case law according to the rule of Estimate (asking for something on loan), the liability of the authorized person in possession of the property has been removed despite the oppression and wastage the trustee is considered traitors and bondsman. In fulfillment of oppression and wastage and the liability resulted from that insight and intention of authorized person has no interfered and effect and oppression and wastage are the bases of liability and civil responsibility. Of achievements of this study which has been done descriptive-analytic is introduction and explanation of proper criteria for identifying oppression and wastage in cases where in the law and the jurisprudence have not been mentioned.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.070 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".