MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399717979 · doi:10.1163/2212943x-bja10010

Almohad-Era Jewish Jurisprudence: Moses Maimonides and Joseph Ibn ʿAqnīn

2024· article· en· W4399717979 on OpenAlex
Marc Herman

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIntellectual History of the Islamicate World · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval and Classical Philosophy
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJudaismJurisprudencePhilosophyOrder (exchange)FiqhIdeologyIslamClassicsJewish philosophyTheologyLawHistoryPolitical scienceShariaPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sarah Stroumsa’s 2009 Maimonides in his World spurred much reconsideration of Almohad influence on medieval Jewish thought. Many now accept that Almohad ideology was at least one crucible in which Moses Maimonides’s thought was forged. This paper broadens exploration of Almohad influences to include Maimonides’s understudied contemporary Joseph ben Judah Ibn ʿAqnīn. It focuses on the jurisprudential theories propounded by these two thinkers in order to evaluate the extent to which their views can be considered distinctively Almohad. Assessment of medieval Jewish legal theory in light of earlier Andalusian and developing Almohad thought allows for a fine-grained level of analysis, pinpointing when Jews endorsed Almohad ideas and when they ratified claims of other schools of Islamic law. In the end, at least on questions of jurisprudence, Maimonides and Ibn ʿAqnīn must be understood within several overlapping and mutually reinforcing traditions, namely, Andalusian Rabbanism, reformed Mālikism, and early Almohadism.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.567
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.187 · 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