Bibliographic record
Abstract
Looking at Islamic jurisprudence, we can see that the effect of notification is more addressed than notification itself and from past Jurisprudences, which had addressed sentencing in absentia more that is the effect of notification itself, it can be concluded that they have passed through the same way of predecessors and have not provided any view regarding the notification itself.Nowadays, with the proliferation of lawsuits in court and costs notification can have, including time waste and prolongation of procedure, it can be said that common tools such as using paper and messenger do not have the necessary efficiency and modern tools of technology should be used in order to facilitate this effort which one of this tools is using electronic notification.But the question which remains unanswered in this regard so far is that, electronic notification fits in which category of notifications: Actually or lawfully notification.Current procedure code is silent in this regard, and legal doctrine also has gone through both ways as some knows electronic notification as kind of legal notification and others as a kind of actual one.But considering the progress of modern society towards the use of electronic modern tools, it seems the latter view is preferred.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.964 | 0.963 |
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".