Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between the physical and the spiritual nature of a human being has been widely discussed within many faith traditions.This paper seeks to deal with one of the physical aspects of human existence: diet.It will be limited to the religions most familiar to Westerners: Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.We will find curious similarities and striking differences in the various links between diet and religion.Historical Survey 1. Hinduism.The complex system of Hinduism has proven to be very resilient.It has absorbed elements of various other religions over thousands of years and yet maintained its distinctive character.Hindus believe in many gods, reincarnation, and karma (understood as how ones actions in previous lives morally affect the current cycle of existence).Regarding diet, Hinduism today differs from what we know of its oldest forms.During the Vedic period in India (after about 2000 BC), Hindus ate meat and sacrificed animals extensively.Conception of an afterlife included a heaven where those who had acquired enough merit through the bestowal of adequate sacrificial gifts were likely to go. 2 Vegetarianism emerged gradually in Hinduism.Around the 7 th century BC, some Hindu sages began to advocate a meatless diet, though they were probably a minority. 3A major upheaval around the 6 th century BC in India deeply affected Hinduism.This led to the formation of the Buddhist and the Jain relig-ionsboth of which put increased emphasis on the sanctity of all life, including 1 Paper presented at the 54 th annual meetings of the Evangelical Theological Society in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, November, 2002, the theme of which was World Religions. 2
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it