Bibliographic record
Abstract
Everybody has difference of opinion which is a natural phenomenon, it is also consider a human right as well. Under the Islamic Jurisprudence system, the difference between the narrations of Jurists is similar and does not vary which had many motives, aims etc. Their differences were neither based on their desires, nor was the difference between the differences, but they differed differently and logical means and for the very concrete reasons. So on this basis, the differences were becoming a very important topic, and many books were also written on mutual differences and their means by various prominent scholars. This study has been carried out by keeping in view the differences of opinions among jurists, definition of recitations, established categories, and status of anomalous recitations impediments as well as jurists' stances on espousing certain judicial rulings based on some anomalous recitations. The study is centered on eight controversial themes over which jurists differed due to their respective understandings of the varied recitations: They include, among other things, the obligation of washing up feet in ritual ablution; the permissibility of (sexual) intercourse upon the end of the menstrual period but before purification bathing.; Identification of (the) middle prayer; validity of making up missed sawm (fasting) in consecutive order; status of "sa'ei" "harrowing back and forth" between Safa and Mrawa, etc.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.978 | 0.973 |
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".