MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913895416 · doi:10.32678/alqalam.v35i1.1106

IBN RUSHD AS JURIST” AND HIS FATWĀ ON LEGAL CAPACITY

2018· article· en· W2913895416 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAl Qalam · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIslamic Studies and History
Canadian institutionsCégep Marie-Victorin
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegal guardianIslamLawSubject (documents)Political scienceRelation (database)Legal statusPhilosophyTheologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Legal capacity is one of the major topics in Islamic law on personal status. The Qurʾān deals with this subject, for example in Q 4: 5-6. However, it only discusses the issue of legal capacity in relation to orphans and minors. Based on the loose Qurʾānic concept of orphans and minors, the jurists of the classical period attempted to understand what was meant by legal capacity in Islam and how ought to operated in a Muslim society. One of the most remarkable jurists who tackled this issue was Ibn Rushd (520/1126-595-1198). In his celebrated collection of fatwā, the Fatāwā Ibn Rushd, he explored the issue of legal capacity based on questions brought to him, who at a time sit as a qāḍī in Sevilla and Cordoba. Keywords: Averroes, legal, capacity, personal status, guardianship, Muslim Spain.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.760
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it