Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The paper aims to offer a new perspective on the strictly microeconomic nature of all of Islamic economics. Writers in this field continue to work in the mainstream tradition without noticing the micro‐interface of the theoretical nature of Islamic economics. This paper aims to address this issue. Design/methodology/approach The paper provides a comparative study of received literature in the history of economic thought and contrasts the ethical foundations of Islamic economics from the mainstream dichotomy between microeconomic and macroeconomic parts. Findings There is a cogent microeconomic foundation of Islamic economics for the economy‐wide treatment of ethical economic issues and problems including the policy framework. Research limitations/implications This is a theoretical exploration. The empirical part is yet to be expanded upon. Practical implications The paper has practical implications for graduate students on policy formulation and economic theorizing, by making them analytically aware on the extensive relevance of microeconomics in the building block of ethical content of economic theory, policy and institutions. Originality/value The paper presents original thinking along lines of microeconomic foundations of macroeconomic theory from the social and ethical vantage points of Islamic economics and finance that writers in this field should not ignore. The paper is meant for serious students and academics of economic theory and ethical social policy embedded in the economic treatment.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".