Discriminación de la mujer en el Derecho de familia islámico y orden público = Discrimination of women in Islamic Family Law and public order
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resumen: El presente trabajo se centra en el análisis de las posibles colisiones existentes entre el orden público español y las principales instituciones del Derecho de familia islámico. No podrán integrarse aquellas instituciones que sean contrarias a valores esenciales de nuestro ordenamiento como la igualdad entre sexos o la monogamia. Sin embargo, a través de la aplicación del orden público atenuado, sería posible reconocer algunos “efectos colaterales” a estas instituciones cuando resultaren beneficiosos para la mujer. El objetivo último sería la protección de ésta como la parte más débil de la relación matrimonial.Palabras clave: Derecho islámico, orden público, matrimonio islámico, poligamia, repudio. Abstract: The present paper focuses on the analysis of the possible collisions between the Spanish public order and the main institutions of the Islamic Family Law. It will not be possible to integrate those institutions which are against essential values of Spanish law such as gender equality or monogamy. However, it would be possible to recognize some “collateral effects” to these institutions if they resulted beneficial for women, through the application of the attenuated public order. The main purpose would be women’s protection, as they are the weakest party of the marriage relationship.Keywords: Islamic Law, public order, Islamic marriage, polygamy, repudiation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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