Manifesting the Semantic Differences of the Words Love and Affection and Their Derivations in the Glorious Quran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research states the importance of love; that word with tender shadows and the one beloved by the human soul, and Islam reflects a special understanding for this word as it is a religion that acknowledges love as one of the most vital and effective human impulses and motives in the individual and collective behavior. It is also one of the paths to recognize Allah and approach him. There is no doubt that affection is a positive virtue because it is, in essence, a means to approve the bonds of love and intimacy and reviving them even if it represents an emotional and sentimental denotation, though it is originally a positive and practical tendency. Love is the polar of worship as loving the religion and its details is a sign of the faith perfection; loving Allah entails obeying his messenger peace be upon him and his tradition. There is a semantic difference between the two words: love and affection as love is what settled in the heart and affection is what was translated by the behavior and not every loving person is friendly and the human can love and this love does not show in his behavior and every friendly person has affection in his heart and its basis is the love feeling inside his heart, therefore the affection is the love which is not reflected. The current research relied on references that deal with the semantic differences as a partnership study conducted by Mosul University in Iraq and Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin in Malaysia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".