Development of the Islamic financial services industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The global financial crisis has increased interest to Islamic finance as a form of mediation, contributing for maintaining of a financial stability. This stability is demonstrated by institutions that offer Islamic financial services, providing insight into the viability of financing based on the Sharia rules. Islamic finance has made progress in Asia in recent years, yet there is still great potential for further growth. Everywhere there is evidence that Islamic finance expands its borders in Asia. This article discusses the development of Islamic banking in the world. The global market for financial services, the relevant provisions of the Qur’an and Sharia canons, over the past decade has increased almost 6 times - from 150 billion US dollars till 822 billion US dollars. At the same time according to some experts, this market has a seven-fold growth potential - up to 4 trillion US dollars. Up today, Islamic finance has developed in more than 50 countries, including 16 countries that amended the legislation in order to create optimal conditions for its further development. These include both Islamic countries and Europe. At the present stage, Islamic financial services market shows active development in the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Canada, China, Japan and other countries.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.006 |
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".