Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a term denoting the acceptance of legal authority, taqlīd has had a complex history. During the second/eighth century, it generally meant the acceptance of the Companions' legal teachings as well as those of the Followers (tābicūn) who had attained a ripe age during the time of the Companions. Later on, the term's connotation underwent change, and acquired the meaning of following the authority of a mujtahid, whether or not he was the founder of a school. However, this general sense of the term, which was to remain fairly constant throughout the centuries, carried with it at least one major ambiguity. On the one hand, it was used in the sense of following the mujtahid's authority without questioning either his textual evidence or the line of reasoning he adopted in a particular case. In this sense, the term was also applicable to the act of following the totality of the founder's legal doctrines as a methodologically systematic structure, without the muqallid being bound by all the individual opinions within the corpus of those doctrines. Hanafite muqallids, for example, were never bound by all of Abū Ḥanīfa's opinions, whether or not they were genuinely his, and regularly drew on the doctrines of several authorities affliated with the school. On the other hand, the term was also employed to indicate loyalty to a legal doctrine but with full knowledge, on the part of the muqallid, of the means by which this doctrine was derived.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".