Bibliographic record
Abstract
In polarizing public opinion, enemies paradoxically cooperate with each other, though the cooperation may be unintentional.-Murray Edelman (1988: 69) This chapter shifts from the court of law to the court of public opinion, where activists, politicians, and NGOs mobilized to frame the significance of the Article 121 (1A) cases for the future of Malaysia.Each case with contested civil/shariah court jurisdiction was important in a legal sense, but their radiating effects were more important still.Each case provided fodder for the media, and new opportunities for civil society mobilization.The cases became the focal points for contestation over a great number of issues, including the appropriate place for Islam in the legal and political order, the secular versus religious foundations of the state, the rights of non-Muslim and non-Malay communities, individual rights and duties rights in Islam, and perennial questions around religious authority -that is, who has the right to speak for Islam.In addition to triggering new normative debates and exacerbating longstanding grievances, the cases galvanized collective action and spurred the formation of entirely new NGOs on both sides of an emergent rights-versus-rites binary.It is not difficult to understand why these cases provoked grave concerns among liberal Muslims and non-Muslims.For these constituencies, each successive court decision suggested that the civil courts were beginning to cede jurisdiction to the shariah courts when cases touched on Islam, even when it meant trampling on the fundamental rights enshrined in the Federal Constitution, and even when non-Muslims were involved.Within the broad context of the dakwah movement over the preceding three decades, liberal rights activists understood these court decisions as a failure of this last bastion of secular law.However, the same court cases evoked fears among religious conservatives.For this constituency, each case was understood not as "creeping Islamization," but as an attack on the autonomy of the shariah courts and, indeed, on Islam itself.For example, in the debate surrounding Lina Joy 91
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.003 |
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".