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.
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The transformative and regulatory accommodation model addresses practical challenges to accommodate religious laws and courts in the secular and democratic regimes. There is a strong evidence against the jurisdictional competition between secular and religious courts under defined conditions. There is no concern regarding the Shariah courts in the non-Muslim democracies, as majority of the country’s ethno-religious groups control the civil and rabbinical courts. In this regard, there is a need to mitigate the negative impact of Muslim Family Laws (MFLs) by the civil courts in non-Muslim majority countries because MFLs imply certain disabilities and limitations upon the displayed rights of women and children. To address these issues, the present study aims to discuss the possibilities and challenges faced by the multicultural and pluri-legal accommodations by focusing on the Islamic law and institutions within the non-Muslim democracies. The results have shown that the reformation of rules and procedures internalize certain principles and discourses due to increased compliance of religious courts with the high court rulings. Increase in the number of Muslim judges on civil courts would help to overcome lack of legitimacy in the perspectives of the Muslim minority that is the main reason of shortcomings of both ex post and ex ante oversight mechanisms.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it