Islamic Lifestyle Applications: Meeting the Spiritual Needs of Modern Muslims
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated contemporary Islamic lifestyle applications supporting religious practices and motivation among Muslims. We reviewed 11 popular applications using self-determination theory and the technology-as-experience framework to assess their support for motivation and affective needs. Most applications lack features that foster autonomy, competence, and relatedness. We also interviewed ten devoted Muslim application users to gain insights into their experiences and unmet needs. Our findings indicate that existing applications fall short in providing comprehensive learning, social connections, and scholar consultations. We propose design implications based on our results, including spiritual empowerment through technology, designing for intrinsic motivation, culturally grounded design and community engagement. We aim to inform the design of Islamic lifestyle applications that better facilitate ritual practices, benefitting application designers and Muslim communities. Our research provides valuable insights into the untapped potential for lifestyle applications to act as religious companions supporting Muslims’ spiritual journey.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it