MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383115177 · doi:10.4000/anisl.11830

Au tribunal de Ṭalīt. Deux partages successoraux entre Coptes du Fayoum (ve/xie siècle)

2022· article· fr· W4383115177 on OpenAlexaff
Mathieu Tillier, Naïm Vanthieghem, Ahmad Kamal

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales islamologiques · 2022
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchaeology and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsMusée de la Civilisation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesTribunalArtPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le tribunal de Ṭalīt, dans le Fayoum méridional, n’était jusqu’ici connu qu’à partir d’un unique document remontant au début de la période fatimide. La présente contribution offre l’édition et la traduction de deux nouveaux documents, comportant en tout cinq textes qui permettent de mettre en évidence le fonctionnement de ce petit tribunal provincial présidé par un substitut, ainsi que son articulation aux échelons supérieurs et inférieurs du système judiciaire islamique. Le procès-verbal d’une audience (maḥḍar), une pétition de plaideur (qiṣṣa) et le rescrit (tawqīʿ) auquel celle‑ci donna lieu, projettent une lumière nouvelle sur les usages de l’écrit dans les tribunaux, surtout étudiés jusqu’ici à partir des sources littéraires. Enfin, à travers ces documents, transparaissent les stratégies successorales d’une famille de notables coptes du village de Ṭuṭūn/Tebtynis, les Banū Ǧirǧa, qui recoururent au tribunal islamique pour sanctionner des accords à l’amiable conformes à leurs coutumes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnales islamologiquesSame topicArchaeology and Historical StudiesFrench-language works237,207