MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405506339 · doi:10.71039/istifham.v1i3.39

Basic Concepts of Islamic Education According to Abuddin Nata

2023· article· en· W4405506339 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mahsyar Idris, Cut Mirza Yanti

Bibliographic record

VenueISTIFHAM Journal Of Islamic Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Character Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah JakartaMcGill University
KeywordsIslamSociologyHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abuddin Nata is a thinker in Islamic education in Indonesia who is very active in the world of education, especially Islamic education. Therefore, the author is interested in looking further into the basic concepts of Islamic education, according to Abuddin Nata. The aim to be achieved in discussing this thesis is to find out Abudin Nata's views on Islamic education and to find out the implementation of the basic concepts of Islamic education according to Abuddin Nata. The type of research in this scientific work is library research, and the method used in discussing this thesis is content analysis. Abuddin Nata said that the curriculum in Islamic education has principles, namely the principle of perfect connection with religion, including teachings and values. Every part of the curriculum, such as objectives, content, methods, and assessment, must be based on religion. The overall principle of the aims and scope of the curriculum includes fostering faith, reason, physicality, and things that benefit society in spiritual, social, economic, and political development. The principle of the relative balance between objectives and curriculum content; The principle of the relationship between talents, interests, abilities, and needs of students; The principle of maintaining individual differences between students in terms of interests or talents; The principle of accepting developments and changes by the times and places and the principle of the relationship between various subjects and the experiences and activities contained in the curriculum

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.371 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueISTIFHAM Journal Of Islamic StudiesSame topicEducation and Character DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207