Muslim Intellectuals’ Insights and Their Contributions to the Development of Alternative Social Science in the Malay-Indonesian Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims to examine the interaction between social science and tradition in Malay-Indonesian scholarship, with a particular focus on the perspectives of Muslim intellectuals. This interaction is represented by two approaches: autonomous social science and prophetic social science. The article argues that both approaches have their distinct inclinations in perceiving and formulating theoretical foundations. These inclinations are shaped by their unique qualities, alternative values, intellectual stances, and thinking styles. Moreover, during the process of development, they are influenced by various factors that give them their distinct characteristics, such as autonomy, a problem-based approach, and a strong commitment to rethinking society and driving change and transformation. The social concept of Islam Nusantara represents this development. It is a collection of arguments and practices of Islam adopted by Muslims in Nusantara, which have shaped patterns of social relations and cohesiveness through communicative actions throughout a specific historical epoch in the region. The article also highlights two essential factors that significantly shape these approaches: the dominant schools of thought in social science and the peculiar Malay-Indonesian traditions. While Western social sciences have played a central role in understanding certain concepts, Malay-Indonesian traditions have contributed significantly to shaping the paradigm of local scholars.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".