Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".