Metodologi Penelitian Hadits tentang Toleransi Beragama di Era Pluralisme Digital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Era pluralisme digital membawa perubahan mendasar terhadap cara masyarakat memahami dan mengekspresikan nilai-nilai keagamaan, termasuk pemaknaan terhadap hadis tentang toleransi beragama. Media digital tidak hanya menjadi sarana dakwah, tetapi juga ruang perdebatan yang sering kali melahirkan polarisasi dan kesalahpahaman terhadap pesan profetik. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengkaji metodologi penelitian hadis yang relevan dalam menganalisis nilai-nilai toleransi beragama di tengah arus pluralisme digital, dengan mengintegrasikan pendekatan mantiq sebagai dasar rasionalitas ilmiah. Metode penelitian menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif-deskriptif berbasis studi pustaka dengan analisis hermeneutik dan logika Islam. Data diperoleh dari literatur klasik dan kontemporer, kitab-kitab hadis utama, serta publikasi ilmiah terkait digital religion dan epistemologi Islam modern. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pemahaman hadis tentang toleransi perlu direkontekstualisasi melalui kolaborasi antara teks, konteks, dan teknologi digital agar lebih adaptif terhadap tantangan era global. Integrasi antara metode takhrij klasik, analisis semantik digital, dan rasionalitas mantiq menghasilkan paradigma baru dalam penelitian hadis yang inklusif, moderat, dan berorientasi pada kemanusiaan universal.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".