The Study of the Authority of an Act of Infallible Imam and Its Illustrations in Jurisprudence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aims to study the Authority of act of Infallible Imam and its illustrations in Jurisprudence through a descriptive-analytic method. Tradition is the second source of legislation and includes the words, actions and writings infallible Imam. Its authority has been proved by the evidence of four including books, tradition, reason and consensus. One aspect of that tradition is the source of discrepancies between the three principal Shiite and Sunni, act of infallible Imam. For this purpose, it has been tried, first, through discussion to prove the infallibility of the Prophet and the Imams and the current tradition in terms of attribution to its owner. Also, we examined the expression of act and the innocent denote each independently. If the work is done from infallible Imam of his peculiarities, certainly will not be a place for spreading it to others verdict. He coordinates if it is not; it certainly is the verdict for all Muslims. As a result, his action is a proof to us.
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".