Hz. Ömer'in Oluşturduğu Divanların Sahabilerle İlgili Bilgilerin Tespitine Etkisi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Influence of the Dīwān of ‘Umar b. Khattāb, the righteous second Caliph, upon Determination of the Information about the Companions The earliest bibliographical works we have today are those written in the third century of Hijra notwithstanding, it is possible that the earliest documents containing bibliographical information date back to the beginning of the second century and even to the end of the last quarter of the first century of Hijra, at a time when ‘Umar, the righteous second Caliph, ordered the dīwāns to be written. We do not know for sure if the Dīwān of ‘Umar was available to use in the beginnings of the second century, when the traditions started to be compiled systematically. However, the fact that those who have worked in dīwāns as scribers or experts have also related a lot of information about the Companions on one hand, and that those scholars who were specialists in the bibliographical information on the Companions have also worked on the dīwāns on the other, shows that the mentioned persons must have benefited from the information in the dīwāns when they wrote the first biographical dictionaries. When one compares the order of the Dīwān which ’Umar produced and the narrations talking about the amount of the gifts (‘atiyya) with the order of the tabaqāt as well as the ansāb works, they realize that the structure of these works mostly corresponds to that of the Dīwān of ‘Umar. Thus, one can say that the Dīwān of ‘Umar influenced the structures as well as the substances of the bibliographical works, which would be written later on
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.088 | 0.028 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".