Intellectual Debates in Relation to the Opening of the Bolgar Islamic Academy (Tatarstan, Russian Federation, 2017)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Bolgar Islamic Academy (BIA) was conceived as the highest level of religious education, where Muslims from all Russian Federation could get MA and PhD degrees in Islamic Studies. Among the main tasks initially set for this educational institution was: a) Integration of all levels of Islamic education into educational consistency throughout the Russian Federation; b) Protection of Muslims from foreign influence c) Development of Russian national traditions in the sphere of Islamic theology; d) Providing opportunities for Russian Muslims to receive high-quality Islamic education (on the Arabic language) in their homeland. On September 4, 2017, the Bolgar Islamic Academy opened its doors for 75 students. Its opening was preceded by a rather interesting discussion, which affected wide audience, including Muslims, Christians, secular-oriented individuals and academic community. On the early organizational stage three concepts of the Bolgar Islamic Academy have developed: 1) the concept of the Muslim Spiritual Council of Republic of Tatarstan, 2) the project of the academic community (by Alfrid Bustanov), and 3) the proposal of Muslim activist Rezeda Safiullina. There were also heated debates between supporters of traditional madrasa education and reformist wing on the pages of the popular electronic newspaper Business Online. The discussion, debates and the final choice of the concept are a wonderful illustration of the Talal Assad’s concept of orthodoxy, which is nothing more than a “distinctive relationship - a relationship of power”.
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 | 0.006 | 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 | 0.021 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".