Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study conducted on the Qur'an's expressional dimension aiming to show that the Qur'an is a linguistic miracle based on its precision to expression. Qur’an from beginning to end, linguistically and rhetorically, their inspiring words, way of delivering message to the people, rhythm, images, explanations with examples, and also with an intensity proves that no one on world could have able to produce or even approach, like that way because it’s a Divine Book. Yet despite this linguistic newness it also preserved the foundations of Arabic language and was eminently comprehensible to the people who heard it. Indeed, not only did they understand its concept but it acts as healer for the broken hearts due to its linguistic uniqueness and many of them unspeakably impressed by it. The newness of the Qur'an which manifested itself on the various levels of both content and style from word choice, to expression, Grammar, morphology, and rhetoric was a source of perplexity and amazement to those who heard the divine revelation. Therefore, in view of its word’s power, this article is being written on the topic of eloquence and rhetoric of divine addresses.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.890 | 0.877 |
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".