THE JEWS AT JERUSALEM IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY ACCORDING TO THE OTTOMAN SIJILLS OF THE SHARI'A COURT IN JERUSALEM SIJILL NO. (28) AS A MODEL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This scientific paper aims to identify the conditions of the Jews of Jerusalem during the Ottoman period in the sixteenth century, through delving into the intensified data included in one of the sijills of the Shari’a Court of Jerusalem, namely Sijill no. (28) Covering the period (27 Rabi` al-Awwal 961 AH/March 2, 1554 AD - Muharram 13, 962 AH / December 7, 1554 AD), since it contains documents of great importance on Jews. Those documents vary, and include criminal and legal issues, and financial transactions, such as: debts, promissory notes, purchasing and selling transactions, buying and selling deals pertaining to houses in the "Jewish Quarter" in the old city of Jerusalem, which was a residence for all people and demoniations. This study also sheds light on the leading role of the Ottoman state in monitoring the Jews, in accordance with the Ottoman law, in light of the of Rights and Duties law in force at the time. The paper concludes with the results and recommendations reached by the authors of this rigorous scientific paper will be presented, the most important of which is the Ottoman state's keenness to prevent Jews from approaching the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque under all circumstances, and the Al-Buraq (Western) Wall in particular, which is not mentioned in any sijill at all. Key words: Sijills of the Sharia Court of Jerusalem, Jews in Jerusalem.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".