Kesetaraan Gender dalam Al-Qur'an (Studi atas Pemikiran Hamka terkait Kewarisan)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The focus of this paper study is related to inheritance in Hamka's perspective. The topic of the author considers important because there are still lack of studies on the themes of gender equality based on the perspective of certain figures. So that the author's expectations with this paper can open up and add to the treasures related to gender equality, especially in terms of inheritance. The determination of this topic aims to respond to the present reality, where some people or groups that make the Quran verses relate to inheritance as a legitimacy of the division of inheritance that does not draw to women without seeing the side Historical verses are derived. Reviewing the historical socio-based method is used in this paper. The conclusion in this paper is that the opinion of Hamka regarding the inheritance of the quarter in line with the opinion of Muhammad Abduh and his disciple Rasheed Ridha that suggests that men get a lot more because of the burden of ownership of the property more Weight than women. But it can change, in line with the development of community context. Hamka's opinion defies strongly against the opinion of classical mufasirs that argue that women lack common sense, property extravagant property and other gender biased opinions that cause the division of its birthright to be denied.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".