Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dissertation considers the life and work of Sir William Jones, a significant figure in the field of Orientalism and a judge in the Bengal Supreme Court. The life and career of Jones is described ,with emphasis on his interests in the Arabic, Persian and Sanskrit languages. A review of literature relating to Jones gives a comparative account of how his work and actions were perceived by commentators and how those perceptions changed in more recent studies of his work. The major part of the dissertation deals with the work of Jones in translating legal texts, with particular attention paid to his last work on Mohamedan laws of intestacy, as part of the plan to administer native laws. The work is considered in the context of the Shari’a and Islamic jurisprudence, the work of Muslim jurists and their function. Consideration is given to the impact of his work, and that of others on the development of Anglo-Mohamedan law. Jones’s contribution to the early development of Oriental studies is evaluated. The significance of Jones to Islamic Studies is assessed, showing that his work and actions were instrumental in affecting the laws of a Muslim society by the introduction of colonialist concepts and practices. The dissertation contains a Glossary of Key Terms and a Bibliography.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".