Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study begins with the assumption that metaphors are widely used in the Quran. The Tafsir Al-Taḥrīr wa al-Tanvīr has special importance among all the Tafasirs due to its latest rhetorical analysis of the Quran. Metaphors have the essential elements of interest which need thorough investigation with special reference to Tafsir Ibn ʻĀshūr and his approach in the presentation of Quranic metaphors. The purpose of the study is to focus on the influence of metaphors on the meaning of verses of Quran in light of the Tafsir. The research also makes effort to link the modern scientific approach of rhetorical study with the approach of Shaykh Muhammad Al- Ibn ʻĀshūr. This Tafsir is of great importance for the researchers in terms of its analysis of metaphorical images and its kinds. The use of metaphors makes it easy to convey the required meaning(s) to the mankind. The research also studies the similarities and differences in the use of metaphorical images in Tafsir Ibn ʻĀshūr in comparison with previous rhetorical Tafasirs. The study also highlights the most rhetorical kinds of metaphors and its importance with special reference to Tafsir Ibn ʻĀshūr.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.963 | 0.941 |
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".