Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biography refers to describing the events of the Holy Prophet's life, his style of life and teachings. In every era, biographers wrote books on the life of the Holy Prophet. Biography began in early Islam. The appearance of those who picked up the pen on the subject of biography took place during the Prophet’s (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) biographers began to write in honor of him. This trend started in the subcontinent as well Apart from Muslim biographers in the subcontinent, non-Muslim biographers also entered this field. Among these biographers, two types of biographers emerged, one class was the one who was inspired by the teachings of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) and wrote out of love for the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the other class was the one who wrote against the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) out of hatred for the Prophet (peace be upon him) due to jealousy. In such a situation, some non-Muslim biographers wrote moderately. Yes, I am. S. Dara is counted among the authentic biographers. He supported realism and in honor of him, he wrote in such a way that even Muslim biographers could not help but praise him. When a Muslim biographer writes on this subject, it is generally believed that he as a believer has given a positive account of the life of his beloved Prophet. But when a non-Muslim steps into this valley, a series of questions begin to arise. People start thinking that why did he, as a non-Muslim, write on the biography of the Messenger of Allah? Does his writing contain the fragrance of the Prophet's love or the poison of the Prophet's hatred?
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.974 | 0.979 |
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".