Discriminación de la mujer en el Derecho de familia islámico y orden público = Discrimination of women in Islamic Family Law and public order
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".