MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945466493 · doi:10.5070/n4171043455

Wilayat Al-Qadi and its Malpractice in Iran, Egypt, and Jordan

2019· article· en· W2945466493 on OpenAlexaff
Al Hajjaji

Bibliographic record

VenueUCLA Journal of Islamic and Near Eastern Law · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIslamic Studies and History
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalpracticeAbuse of powerAccountabilityIndependence (probability theory)IslamLawPolitical sciencePower (physics)InstitutionJudicial independenceSupreme courtIslamic republicHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The people play a direct and important role in the Islamic theory of judicial power (Wilayat Al-Qadi). This role begins in participating in the appointment of a supreme judge. The people also ensure the independence and accountability of individual judges and the judiciary as an institution. This article argues that the judicial systems of Iran, Egypt, and Jordan abuse their powers. It offers an account of the malpractice of judicial power in these countries and recommends reforms to conform with Islamic principles.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUCLA Journal of Islamic and Near Eastern LawSame topicIslamic Studies and HistoryFrench-language works237,207