The Concept of “Hareem” in Fatima Al-Mernissi’s Perception & the Cultural Criticism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study analyzes the concept of Hareem through the books and writings of Fatima Al-Mernissi that make this concept central and fundamental. It is important for any researcher to deeply go through this concept in order to understand her feminist cultural discourse, especially as it is a multi-meaning concept that runs from the linguistic meaning to forms and multiple images Hareem; unrealistic Hareem, delusional Hareem, and from the eastern to the western Hareem, political and invisible Hareem, and makes Scheherazade’s image an icon to alterations and transformations of this concept. Al-Mernissi is primarily concerned about providing an image of eastern Arabic Muslim woman, she discussed the dimensions of this image by understanding the different religious, political, social and cultural conditions that emerged, and at the same time paying attention to that this eastern Hareem is linked very closely to the European and American Hareem, which even if disagreed in form, but has the exact context. Al-Mernissi also dismantled the concept of Hareem through serious and profound investigations in different sources that produced it, being basically a sociologist, and in order to understand the image of women and analyze it, she based on social studies in different scopes of knowledge.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".