MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Shari’a Tribunals in North America

2024· reference-entry· en· W4398183803 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James T. Richardson, Bryan S. Turner

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion · 2024
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIslamic Studies and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyHistoryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Some North American societies, especially Canada and the United States, are experiencing increasing numbers of Muslim citizens, and those communities have grown and become more integrated into the two societies. Predictably, they have sought the right to practice their faith in ways similar to how other minority religions are treated within the relatively open societies in which they reside. However, tragic events such as the destruction of the World Trade Center has led to considerable animus toward Muslims within the two societies, thus impeding efforts to seek more acceptance of Islamic practices, such as when settling domestic disputes involving divorce, child custody, and inheritance. Controversies have erupted in both the United States and Canada over efforts to allow arbitration in the area of domestic affairs for Muslims. A number of scholars have addressed this topic, often using previously accepted treatments of Jewish minorities as a model. The pros and cons of such an approach have been presented, leading to the conclusion from many of those scholars that allowing, within certain limits, recognition of Muslim practices within the domestic relations area would be beneficial both to the societies at large and to the Muslim citizens residing within them.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.633
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford Research Encyclopedia of ReligionSame topicIslamic Studies and HistoryFrench-language works237,207