Children’s Protection in the Issue of Hadhanah Based on Islamic Family Law and the Law of Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyses Children Protection in the Islamic Family Law of the Southern of Thailand and the Civil Law of Thailand. The common issue faced by the Court or the District Islamic Department is the rising number of hadhanah claim cases. This research is meant to investigate the rights of children regarding hadhanah based on the Islamic Family Law of the Southern of Thailand and to which extent the laws stated follow the syarak rules. This research utilized few approaches which are the content, deductive, inductive, and comparative analysis. Basically, the findings suggest that the differences between the two laws can be accepted as both laws are originated from distinguished backgrounds. Therefore, both laws play crucial role in completely protecting the children in hadhanah cases, as well as promising safety and peaceful life for the children even though their parents’ relationship is in crisis. or its success. However, research on PDR with special emphasis on stakeholders and their significance in success and sustainability of the projects is limited. This paper provides a systematic literature review (SLR) to amalgamate and synthesise research in this area. It focuses on the identification of the stakeholders and significance of their engagement in PDR activities for a more sustainable and resilient built environment. Research papers published in peer reviewed academic journals from 2000 to 2014 were identified through three major research databases, using T/A/K search options. The selected research papers were reviewed and critically analysed to identify the stakeholders and mechanism of their identification. This research revealed that contemporary research is unable to identify a commonly agreeable scientific method for identification of stakeholders and their interests. This research has outlined an exhaustive list of stakeholders that have been identified by the researchers. Based upon systematic review, this research has also provided background information, recent trends and a future direction for research in the specific field of stakeholder engagement in PDR projects.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".