Bibliographic record
Abstract
This era of Muslim-Christian relationship is deeply indebted to such scholars who, from their Christian point of view, have given a fresh air and deeper understanding of Islam. They have advocated the element of love and sympathy in their research. They have illuminated the hidden values and profound meaning of Islamic religion. It means that there is a space for an apology for apologetic thinkers. Kenneth Cragg was one among these soft minded scholars who addressed the Christian world to retake the Muslim world in a way which is acceptable for Muslims. Kenneth Cragg was an Evangelical upbringing Bishop, Missionary and professor. His field of research was Semitic religions but his main focus was Muslim-Christian relations. He wrote more than sixty books and mostly is on Islam, in which he mostly discussed those matters which are similar in Islam and Christianity, especially according to the Quran and Gospel. Both the sides accused him, Christian said: that he was giving priority to Quran over New Testament and the Muslim scholars blamed him that he was Christianizing Islam, but he looked sincere to create harmony between Islam and Christianity. In this paper we critically analyze his views about Muslim –Christian relationship.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.981 | 0.966 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".