Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lately, the very role of Islamic institutions of higher learning known as Madrasās particularly in Pakistan has been in the debate at national as well as international levels. Some consider these seminaries as the citadels of Islam; and some view them as sources of hatred, extremism, activism, fanaticism, and terrorism. The argument advanced in favour of the role of Islamic centers of learning is that their end-products serve the society as muftis, sharīʻah court judges, religious teachers, Qadīs for the marriage ceremony, preachers, imāms of mosques, and mu’azzins for prayers. It is claimed that Pakistan without these Madrasās will lose its face as an Islamic nation, on the one hand, and Muslims will stand deprived of the services of the most needed personnel in the socio-religious arena, on the other. The motivation to work in Madāris is the thought pattern of the modern studies which enable us to have an insight into how critical and vulnerable is the education given at Madāris of Pakistan. Blame game against Islamic institutions is for sure to pour petrol on the fire, so the problem needs to be tackled wisely. This study is aimed at delving into the system of education involving both curricula and the methodology of teaching and learning in Madāris and suggesting ways to overcome the underlying problems. The findings of the study may prove a catalyst in making Madāris education boon and not bane for the beloved country.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.996 | 0.982 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".