Bibliographic record
Abstract
The modernist and positivist approach presupposes that Ibn Khaldun’s theory of the rise and fall of societies depends solely on inductive observation. In Ibn Khaldun’s theory, however, understanding the social world requires the knowledge of revelation and more than the empirical knowledge of rational reasons behind the rise and fall of societies. In this regard, his explanations refer only to the sudden mechanism in the history of humanity and are not contrary to the message of the Quran. The aspect of philosophy and religious sciences, which is more important even than dualism, is the triple architecture in reviving Ibn Khaldun’s Ilm al-Umran. He studies Ilm al-Umran towards the middle world of social existence, without separating it from other worlds. Ibn Khaldun’s science is encompassing because it includes certain insights from the revelation. Ibn Khaldun has neither a rationalist nor a religious viewpoint. His is a wide vision which seeks and successfully manages the paradoxes of human existence. This article is an attempt of comparative analysis of the conventional discourses on Ibn Khaldun and the intellectual passages in his works within the context of aforementioned cross readings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".