MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The ‘Art’ of Science and Research: Jabir Ibn Hayyan Laid the Foundation

2021· article· en· W3142044296 on OpenAlex
Naweed I. Syed, Areej Zehra Syed, Rehan Naqvi

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENDORSING HEALTH SCIENCE RESEARCH (IJEHSR) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval and Classical Philosophy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of Louisville
KeywordsFoundation (evidence)PhilosophyEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article identifies scientists' attributes and their approaches to innovation, sciences, research, and discovery as ascribed by Abu Musa-Jabir Ibn Hayyan al- Azdi - also known as Jabir Ibn Hayyan (or Geber) in the late 7th to early 8th century. Jabir was the first polymath to have set the stage for the Golden Age of Islam that lasted from the 8th to 12th century. In several of his books and research articles, Jabir identified researchers, scientists and scholars as the “artists” and their research methodologies and experimentation as the "art." A mastery or specialization in any given discipline that an "artist' pursues was termed by him as the “Majistery”. The attributes that he proposed several centuries ago have since become the criteria, befitting the “art” of our present-day scientists and scholars. He explicitly detailed the attributes of an “artist” and also those who were recommended not to pursue sciences as a career. He described natural talent, innate propensity, the conquest of knowledge, deeper insights into Mother Nature, ingenuity, critical thinking, foresight, flexibility, adaptability, resiliency, persistence and selflessness as the essential ingredients of scientists and their success. Additionally, he also deemed funding, collaboration, partnership and community support to be pivotal. Rigidity – the "stiff neck," as he described it, and the lack of adaptability to be detriments to the ‘art’ of sciences. This article provides an eye-opening account of the scientific rigor that led to the Golden Age on the one hand, and on the other hand, attempts to reconcile the compatibility of modern sciences with traditional Islamic teachings. It also identifies the critical success factors that led to the rise of sciences in the Islamic world, which have since either been forgotten or ignored. We make recommendations throughout as to what needs to be done to revive the Golden Age of Sciences in the Muslim world.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.019
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.347
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.159 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it