The authenticity of electronic document in Islamic Law and Malaysian Law of Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the advancement of technology, the ways human communicates and interacts with each other have changed exponentially, where face to face or physical meetings and contacts can now be replaced with google meet, emails, video conferencing, digital signature etc. in ensuring that the proposed or intendedaffairs are successfully done but is no less efficient, time and cost saving. As the conversation took place through digital platform, it is automatically recorded in binary format, and the electronic evidence is usually automatically generated, recorded and stored. As dispute sometimes could not be avoided, the parties involved could turn to this electronic document to prove their facts in addition to document in traditional format. The fact or facts contained in such document to be adduced in evidence must be legally relevant, primary evidence and authentic as required by the Malaysian Evidence Act 1950 (Act 56). Islamic Law of Evidence too requires the fact presented as evidence in the form of document has to be authentic. The truth of its contents is a separate matter that need to be proven. However, due the nature of electronic evidence being relatively fragile, easily altered and manipulated, countries like Canada, India, and Singapore, have adopted in their Evidence Act, authentication provisions which is unwittingly consistent with the principles of Islamic Law of Evidence. This research is a qualitative research which used data collection and data analysis including library research and semi-structured interview. The finding of this research established that both common law and Islamic law requires that to adduce a document, its authenticity is one of the conditions of admissibility. Countries following common law has even gone further to insert newer authentication provisions in their law of evidence to accommodate the reception of electronic evidence or computer-generated document driven by newer technology. It is proposed that the Malaysian Evidence Act 1950 continues to be updated to keep pace with electronic document or computer-generated document driven by newer technology. However, there must also be provisions to ensure that the authenticity of electronic document must be supported by evidence capable of supporting a finding that the electronic document is that which it is purported to be. This technology driven document is also known as digital document, electronic document or computer-generated document.
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 | 0.026 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".