MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165272922 · doi:10.5430/elr.v10n2p12

Similes in Parts Twenty-Ninth and Thirty of the Holy Quran

2021· article· en· W3165272922 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Linguistics Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQur’anic Interpretation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimileNinthLinguisticsMeaning (existential)MathematicsPhilosophyEpistemologyMetaphorPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to analyze the Quranic similes in Parts Twenty-ninth and Thirty of the Holy Quran as they contain 48 Surah from a total of 114 Surah, with a percentage of 42%. They are Makkan Surah except for four of them (Surah Al-Insan, Surah Al-Bayyina, Surah Al-Zalzala, Surah An-Nasr(. The study consists of two topics; the first one addressed the theoretical aspects of the term, the importance of simile and its role in clarifying the intended meaning. The second topic addressed the applied aspects by collecting, studying, analyzing, and examining the close linguistic meanings of similes, up to demonstrating their beauty and comparing them with other similes in other places in Quran. For this purpose, the researchers used the two tools of textual approach; description and analysis as the approach used in this study.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.164
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.680
Threshold uncertainty score0.843

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.164
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.343 · 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