MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234927812 · doi:10.35632/ajis.v24i4.1511

Editorial

2007· editorial· en· W4234927812 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Katherine Bullock

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Islam and Society · 2007
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Society, and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawSociologyPolitical scienceTheme (computing)Public relationsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In July 2007, the Association of Muslim Social Scientists (AMSS) launchedits new website: www.amss.net. This event signals a reinvigorated AMSSthat seeks to update itself and enhance its professional image. The launchcomes after several years of hard work, conducted mostly behind the scenes,on behalf of the AMSS Executive Board. Under the guidance of Dr. RafikBeekun (president, AMSS), a recognized expert in strategic planning,AMSS has undergone a complete overhaul, from a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses,opportunities, threats) analysis to revising its by-laws and engagingin strategic planning, to implementation.In order to recognize the separate but related nature of Canada to theUnited States (it is not simply the 51st state!), as well as the prominent rolebeing played by Canadian social scientists in AMSS, the board has suggesteda new name: The Association of Muslim Social Scientists of NorthAmerica. This is, of course, contingent upon the membership’s pendingapproval of the new by-laws. In addition, this name change helps identifyus in relation to our sister organizations: AMSS-UK and AMSS-France.Each association is an independent entity sharing a common name, vision,and goals. The first AMSS international conference was held in Istanbul in2006.One theme of AMSS’ new mission statement is that the organizationwill serve as an enabling environment for critical dialogue and debatebetween Muslim and non-Muslim scholars about issues of importance tothe ummah and global society at large. The ability to dialogue is currentlynot one of the Muslim community’s strengths. Dialogue is about talking,about sitting down with people from different backgrounds in order tounderstand their perspective on often controversial issues. The point is notto convince them that your position is the “truth” or vice versa, but to hearthem as fellow human beings and have them hear you. As the NationalCoalition for Dialogue and Deliberation points out, “dialogue is not aboutwinning an argument or coming to an agreement, but about understandingand learning. Dialogue dispels stereotypes, builds trust and enables peopleto be open to perspectives that are very different from their own” (http://-thataway.org/index.php/?page_id=713) ...

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.953

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Islam and SocietySame topicReligion, Society, and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207