Islamic Policy of the Dutch East Indies Colonial Government in Madura in the First Quarter of the 20th Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At first the Dutch East Indies government policy towards Islam was wrong, because Islam in the Dutch East Indies was considered a strict religion like the hierarchical priesthood and the pope in Christianity where there was a high relationship of loyalty to the Turkish caliph, so that Islam was considered a formidable enemy. Starting with the implementation of a massive policy by the Dutch East Indies government to suppress Muslims, for example, one of them was in terms of limiting and heavier the regulations for the implementation of the pilgrimage, but in reality, regardless of the obstacles, the frequency of going on hajj was still high. Awareness of the mistakes in political policy towards Islam, the figure of Cristian Snouck Hurgronje, one of the supporters of ethical currents in the Netherlands, appeared, submitting a letter to the minister of the colonies on June 2, 1889 to participate in solving problems in the Dutch East Indies. In this case Snouk Hurgronje was the main advisor and was assisted by advisers consisting of one for Arab affairs and two experts in regional languages in the Dutch East Indies. Based on Snouck Hurgronje's advice, the Dutch colonial government distinguished between Islam in the meaning of worship and Islam as a social, social and political force. This policy towards Islam is divided into three categories, namely the socio-religious field, the socio-cultural sector, and the socio-political sector.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".