Bibliographic record
Abstract
Islamic financial instruments can be accepted globally due to the economic globalization and financial crises faced by the world from time to time. Initially, the innovations in the Islamic finance industry have been started in the Middle East and Southeast Asia but gradually boost up with rapid growth in developed countries including the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, and the countries in the European Union where they implement the Islamic financial system. Islamic financial institutions (IFIs) must conform to the commands of Islamic canon law, that is Shariah consisting primarily of the Quran and Sunnah and, second, Ijmah and Qiyas which forbid interest, gambling, uncertainty, and ensure the profit and loss sharing (PLS) and asset-based mechanism. Later on, Islamic banking institutions derived from the Islamic financial system to fulfil the financial services needs as well as religious obligations of the majority of Muslims around the globe. The most important feature of the Islamic banking industry is that Islamic banks (IBs) have the duty to ensure Shar’ah compliance and implement the Shariah rulings in their products, practices, management, and operations under the supervision of Shariah Supervisory Board (SSB). The governance structure supervised by SSB is the most central organ and a unique autonomous body in Islamic banks that must be independent in taking decisions, implementation of pronouncements ( fatwa ), and competent for exercising their duties to make objectives and informal judgments and it can be extended to the Shariah system. However, there is sufficient literature available on the Shariah governance framework and roles and responsibilities of SSB but there is a dearth of academic writings to resolve the competency issue of this industry. This chapter is an attempt to address the issue of SSB competency in the Islamic banking industry.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".