The Relevance and Impact of Laws Regulating Premarital Screenings in the Muslim Arab Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to maintain the general health and prevent against propagation of contagious diseases, the majority of the Arabic Muslim countries adopted laws and regulations implementing mandatory programs of premarital screening and counseling. All these countries faced the challenge of maintaining healthy society without breaching human rights or neglecting respect to the main rules and dispositions of Islamic religion. This research studied the evolution of the legalization of the premarital screening laws in the Arab Muslim countries. Data was collected from different legislations regarding the premarital screenings in certain Arab Muslim countries and other occidental countries and similar cultural communities. Data were included regarding 8 Arab Muslim countries, 3 occidental countries, China and the Orthodox Jewish Community. An intensive literature review regarding researches measuring the outcomes of premarital screening in Arabic Muslim countries was also performed. A document’s review was performed over legal documents and scientific researches. The research showed that the majority of laws in the Arab Muslim countries made the analysis and medical examination mandatory. Nevertheless, it is up to the future husband and wife to decide whether to continue the process of marriage or not. The imposition of premarital medical examination laws in the Arabic Muslim countries lead us to observe positive outcomes in countries like Bahrain, Palestine, UAE, Saudi Arabia and no effect in Egypt, Kuwait and Tunisia. An urgent need of researches measuring the outcomes of programs of premarital screenings was observed.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".