Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among the interest in the study of Muhammad and the Quran was born from the Orientalists. Including the Orientalists who were very influential on this study was Abraham Geiger. From this research, it is found that Geiger has a view that tends to be contrary to that of Muslim scholars in general. Where Geiger views that Muhammad was someone who had tried to bring up the Quran because it was influenced by the Jewish culture that already existed in the Arab region at that time. Geigers opinion is based on several facts that he put forward, which include: When Muhammad carried out his mission in Medina, Muhammad was dealing with Jews who had long had a strong influence on the local community and Muhammad had close relations with Jews. in the area. This fact is then reinforced by Geigers findings in the Qur'an which are indicated to be taken from the Jewish tradition, such as the discovery of 14 vocabulary words of the Koran which tend to be the same as Jewish dogma, the discovery of doctrinal concepts that indicate the adaptation of the Qur'an from the Jews. and the stories in the Koran that tend to be in line with Jewish teachings.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".