Prophetic Communication in Historical and Axiological Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prophetic communication needs to be reviewed from a historical and axiological perspective. Understanding from a historical point of view means trying to see the Prophet Muhammad as the perpetrator of the history of prophetic communication, reviewing from an axiological point of view to see how far the benefits of this prophetic communication are to human life both personally and communally. Seeing the integration of ethical and aesthetic values that must exist in prophetic communication is the next important part of unraveling prophetic communication from an axiological perspective. The research method used in this research is qualitative with a literature study, analyzing literary references and providing a critical review of prophetic communication in the historical and axiological review of these references. Suppose research on prophetic communication tends to be in the form of implementation. In that case, this research reviews prophetic communication from a historical perspective, which is the initial foundation of prophetic communication, and axiologically to see its application in individual and social aspects more deeply. The ultimate goal resulting from the implementation of prophetic communication is, of course, as we have seen to this day, namely, a change in civilization, specifically the transition from the Jahiliyah era or before the presence of the Prophet SAW to modern life today. The results of this study indicate that prophetic communication is closely related historically and axiologically.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".