Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The emergence of Islamic religiously affiliated higher education institutions connects to a much longer history of primarily religiously affiliated higher education in the United States and Canada—with religiously affiliated institutions comprising the majority of higher education institutions for most of the past three centuries. Islamic institutions joined a more recent wave that started in the 1970s with a small number of Buddhist universities. For North American Muslims, the move toward establishing higher education institutions took three sometimes overlapping paths: the first focused on providing undergraduate and graduate degrees, the second focused on providing training for Muslim religious education professionals, and the third for future or early 21st-century religious professionals. (A fourth thread runs through these others: most institutions offer some opportunity for community members to take courses or pursue programs for the purpose of deepening their personal piety.) These three paths have often diverged with respect to pursuing state or regional academic accreditation, although that diminished since the 2010s. Islamic colleges and universities in North America are an internally diverse group, in terms of whether they seek academic accreditation, whether they offer full degrees or certifications/certificates, whether they offer residential, commuter, or online learning experiences, whether they envision graduates working as religious professionals or in other fields, and in the range of religious orientations they offer, within a largely Sunni identity. In addition, many of these institutions, including the most well known, Zaytuna College, have evolved in different directions since their founding, showing their dynamism as individual institutions and as a broader group. As the needs, interests, and outlooks of Muslim communities in the United States and Canada continue to shift, and as higher education in both countries continues to develop, these institutions will likely continue to do the same.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".