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 oneÕs 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 ÒheavenÓ 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-ionsÐboth 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 ÒWorld Religions.Ó 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".