An ‘Epistemic Weight’ of Islamic Practical Theology in Contemporary Islamic Social Work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this chapter is to highlight the main arguments in the development of Islamic social work practice. In this respect, Islamic practical theology provides certain theories and methods as a solid foundation for Islamic social work practice. Taking into account a revival of new approaches to teaching Islamic practical theology, this paper provides reflection on the methods for teaching it, based on a new and broader understanding of theology in Islam. The primary question of this chapter is: What are the best practices in teaching Islamic practical theology which prepare Muslim social work students to connect theological understanding to the everyday experience of Muslims in the community, society and the world? The second question is: How do Muslim social workers use daily life practices as an “epistemic weight” in the production of new knowledge in Islamic social work? Finally, the chapter discusses the question of whether Islamic practical theology, including Islamic doctrine, tradition, and the “living human document”, holds a central position in Islamic social work.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".