Judicial pluralism under the “Berber empires” (last quarter of the 11th century C.E. – first half of the 13th century C.E.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This article deals with judicial pluralism under the rule of the Almoravids and the Almohads. Both dynasties deserve to be considered jointly in a study of the judiciary in the pre-modern Islamic West. Given their close association with Mālikism, the Almoravids created a scenario apt for the Mālikī fuqahā’ to improve the position of qāḍī‑s vis-à-vis governmental judges. Conversely, qāḍī‑s are believed to have been deprived of a significant part of their powers and independence as a consequence of Almohad legal policy, which jeopardized Mālikism’s predominance and control over the judiciary. This article is organized into three parts : (1) a diachronic overview of the specificities of the judiciary in al‑Andalus and the Far Maghrib ; (2) the Almoravids’ judicial policy and the jurists’ counter-reaction ; (3) dialectics between rulers and Mālikī qāḍī‑s in the Almohad period. The aim is to test whether textual evidence and previous research still support the idea that both periods mark a peak and a bottom respectively in the Mālikīs’ position with political power, and therefore, in the balance of forces between qāḍī‑s and governmental judges.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".