MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391004752 · doi:10.1163/24685542-20240001

Islamic Ethics: Fundamental Aspects of Human Conduct, written by Abdulaziz Sachedina

2024· article· en· W4391004752 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohammed Hashas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Islamic Ethics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIslamic Studies and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIslamEngineering ethicsPsychologyPhilosophyEngineeringTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p dir="ltr">In 2022 the prominent scholar Abdulaziz Sachedina enriched the field of Islamic ethics with a new publication titled Islamic Ethics: Fundamental Aspects of Human Conduct. Having received his education at religious semi­naries and modern universities in India, Iraq, Iran (where he studied under Ali Shariati, d. 1977), and Canada, he settled down at the University of Virginia in the US, where he stayed for about four decades. Sachedina has mostly written on Islamic messianism from a Shīʿī perspective, jurisprudence and biomedical ethics, and pluralism. Among his publications are The Just Ruler in Shiʿite Islam (1988), The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism (2001), Islamic Biomedical Ethics (2009), Islam and the Challenge of Human Rights (2009). In the introduc­tion to the current book, he says that writing on ethics has been on his “things to do list” for a long time. <h2>Other Information</h2><p dir="ltr">Published in: Journal of Islamic Ethics<br>License: <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" target="_blank">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</a><br>See article on publisher's website: <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1163/24685542-20240001" target="_blank">https://dx.doi.org/10.1163/24685542-20240001</a> <br> <p dir="ltr">Volume and issue information: Vol 8 No. 1-2 (2024): December 2024

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.435
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Islamic EthicsSame topicIslamic Studies and HistoryFrench-language works237,207