Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper observes how the field of tafsīr studies has continued to establish itself as an important discipline within Islamic studies in Western academia. It traces how the previous scholarship, which was more preoccupied with Qur’anic studies, has shifted attention to Qur’an commentaries rather than exclusively to the Qur’anic text. Although not an exhaustive survey of all Western works devoted to tafsīr literature as it excludes studies on modern tafsīr, this paper confirms the significance of the classical and, more importantly, medieval tafsīr tradition as a lens through which Islamic intellectual history can be approached. By surveying bibliographical data produced in the past few decades, this article has found that Sunni and mystical Qur’an commentaries have received greater scholarly investigation, that tafsīr historians’ works have transformed traditional views on the history of tafsīr, and that although the field of tafsīr studies is still intimately connected with Qur’anic studies, some current publications testify that it might become an independent study.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.044 | 0.091 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".