Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction In the entire repertoire of legal concepts, there is today no more ambiguous and multi-layered term than jihād . The concept is charged with religious, legal, cultural and political connotations, and has proven to be even more controversial than such concepts and practices as polygamy. Its potential and outward militancy invariably provokes hostile reactions from Western observers, even when they are in full cognizance of the fact that jihād is a theory that belongs to the past. The fear of Islam and of its alleged aggressiveness – in itself a constitutive ingredient of Western culture since at least the European Middle Ages – has led even the more prominent scholars to view the theory as if it were an applied reality and – as if this were not problematic enough – to attach to the theory the most negative interpretations. What is even more problematic is a third complicating factor, i.e., the projection of an overcharged negative interpretation of the remote past upon a contemporary reality that bears no resemblance whatsoever to that former era. It appears that paradigmatic Western scholarship – not to mention mass media – has allowed itself to succumb to all three problematics. In this chapter, I will briefly discuss the classical theory of jihād , how it was reinterpreted in light of European colonialism, and – by way of conclusion – its significance today.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.005 |
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".