Analysis and Review of Wife Inheritance and the Parents of the Deceased in the Religions with Holy Book
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>To talk about human rights in the new and modern format and is one of the most important features of the contemporary era and in which, the rights of women is of particular importance. Elimination of legal discrimination due to gender, in different aspects of the life of human rights, with emphasis on women's rights forms the primary focus of all regional and international treaties and Declaration of women's rights. Defending financial rights of women including women's inheritance right is a critical argument.</p>With a careful study, we find that in various religions, wife inheritance is accepted and in divine religions (with the holy book). This issue has been respected and regarding form, there are similarities between the religions about the wife inheritance, However, apart from similarities, regarding essence, they have legislative differences. So in this seminar, the wife inheritance in divine religions is explained and analyzed, and comparative review of wife and parents estate of deceased in different religions is done so the problems in this regard can be obviated.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it