Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thirty-eight essays are brought together in this volume to honor HermannLandolt of the Institute of Islamic Studies at McGill University, Canada. Abroad range of participants, including former students and colleagues bothclose and distant, have contributed essays, most of which deal with aspects ofIsmaili, Ithna-ashari, or Sufi thought. Almost all of the essays are in English;four are in French, however. The range of topics is catholic, to say the least,and the rough chronological ordering of the essays can hardly contain them.The “classical” section features such figures as al-Junayd, al-Farabi, IbnTufayl, al-Qadi al-Nu`man, al-Kirmani, Abu Hatim al-Razi, and al-Waqidi;the “medieval” takes in al-Ghazzali, al-Suhrawardi, al-Qushayri, al-Shahrastani,Afdal al-Din Kashani, Jami’, Najm al-Din Kubra, Ibn Sina, and al-Sha`rani; the “pre-modern” includes Shah Tahir, Ahmad Sirhindi, MollaSadra, and Fayd al-Kashani; and the “modern” section features not so muchpeople as themes, such as dervish orders, Ginans, ulama, tradition, and modernization.It is worth noting that several articles in the last section focustheir attention on medieval as much as modern aspects (if not more so, as inthe case of Eric Ormsby’s interesting essay “The Faith of Pharaoh: ADisputed Question in Islamic Theology”). Their classification seems to bemore out of consideration for achieving balance in the book’s form than inaccurately reflecting the contents. Be that as it may, such a cornucopia (asthe editor describes it) cannot help but provide something of relevance toalmost everyone interested in Islamic thought.Two essays particularly drew my attention; they also left me wishingthat the two authors had had an opportunity to consider the conjunctionbetween their papers before they were published (but the absence of such is,of course, in the nature of most such collections). L. Clarke’s excellent paperon “The Rise and Decline of Taqiyya in Twelver Shi`ism” will reward everyreader. Clarke shows how two meanings of taqiyya – “precautionary dissimulationof belief” and “esoteric silence,” what she calls legal and esoterictaqiyya, respectively – became blended through the ages. Esoteric taqiyyawas “a necessary and integral part” of Twelver Shi`ism in early times, for the ...
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".