MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391858613 · doi:10.24252/al-qadau.v10i1.29867

The Validity of The Marriage Guardian in The Case of Elopement in The Perspective of Islamic Law

2023· article· en· W4391858613 on OpenAlexaff
Fadilah Syafitra, Sia Khosyi'ah

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Al-Qadau Peradilan dan Hukum Keluarga Islam · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMarriage and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIslamGuardianPerspective (graphical)LawShariaPolitical scienceSociologyGenealogyHistoryMathematicsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to discuss the view of Islamic law on the validity of marriage guardians in cases of elopement. The research method used is a qualitative method with normative juridical. Data collection was carried out by observation and interview techniques for three elopement pairs and with the head of the local KUA. The results and discussion showed that the elopement factor occurred due to the parents' disapproval of the bride and groom's wedding plans. The disapproval was caused by financial unpreparedness and not being old enough for the bride and groom. The impacts caused are in the form of internal family problems, problems in state administration and social problems. The three elopement couples were married in the absence of a guardian who obtained guardianship permission from the guardianship of the nasab. In addition, marriages are performed without applying for marriage dispensation to religious courts because three of the six are minors. So it can be concluded that both religiously and legally in Indonesia, the marriage of the three couples is invalid.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.028
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Al-Qadau Peradilan dan Hukum Keluarga IslamSame topicMarriage and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207