Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research explores the judiciary role in recognition of fundamental human rights, preservation of their civility and protection of laws. Government goals will better achieve by the standards developed by the judiciary in making people life easier, specifically in a context of Islamic teachings. Interpretation upon the comprehensive literature review, this study explores the relationship between the Government and the people and the international community through developing standards and laws in perception of Islam. Addressing the research question, “What role judiciary play in betterment of human’s life and as a guardian of the Constitution through embryonic standards and laws in Islamic perspective?” the study approaches the qualitative and analytical methodology. Data is collected through research, observations and studies conducted in Islamic communities and by the other scholars. The findings underscore the duties of the State and the rights of human by drafting limitation, preventions and equitable decisions. It delves into Islamic teachings influencing equitable enforcement of law and solidification of Human rights. It is further concluded that the State is obliged to constitute equal rights of freedom, democracy, social justice, tolerance equality of status as enunciated by Islam to ensure peace and protection in the country. It is recommended further to foster Islamic norms and values in judicial constitutions and policy makers for optimal protection of human rights and stability of political system.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.953 | 0.924 |
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".