Apocalyptic Imaginaries: The Human Form and Borderlines According to Abū Yaʿqūb al-Sijistānī
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is interested in how apocalyptic imaginaries establish borderlines as it reconsider the manners in which Abū Ya‘qūb al-Sijistānī's discussions of the End Time resisted the messianic sovereignties implicit in 10th-century Fāṭimid Ismā’īlī thought, in particular, as he introduces a Qā'im-ology without specific reference to the Ismā’īlī imām. To do so, this study first takes a broad theoretical perspective on the aesthetics and anesthesia of the destruction and violence of the End Time, giving careful consideration to apocalyptic imaginaries in calibrated political and soteriological landscapes, turning then to Sijistānī's theories of the barzakh, the cyclical resurrection of the soul, the perfection of the human form (ba’th), and the Qā'im as a process of istishfāf, or rendering transparent the human form as the nafs zakiyyah (pure soul). The coded symbolism of a messianism that questions time's time-line points to how the political and historical horizon event of the Qā'im's rising remains obscure in select works of Sijistānī. In Sijistānī's subtle staging of Fāṭimid Ismā’īlī doctrines of messianism and divine guidance, the apocalyptic plot line of returning to an original unity is suspended. As well, the images of the End Time’s cataclysmic events are displaced.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".