Defining Buddhism(s): A Reader (Critical Categories in the Study of Religion). Edited by Karen Derris and Natalie Gummer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Defining Buddhism(s) is a new addition to the series Critical Categories in the Study of Religion edited by the always-provocative Russell T. McCutcheon. This series aims to present pivotal scholarly articles that focus on the development of categories and terminology of scholarship to make clear to readers that cognitive categories are inherited gifts from the past that themselves are constructed and subject to change over time. The editors of Defining Buddhism(s), Karen Derris and Natalie Gummer, have skillfully brought together ten essays by leading scholars of Buddhist formations to illustrate the multiple ways that the mid-eighteenth scholarly artifact “Buddhism” has been defined and constructed by Buddhists and scholars. Derris and Gummer provide an introduction to the volume as well as introductory essays to the sections that comprise the volume. The ten essays selected by Derris and Gummer, all of which are recent critical discourses published between 1991 and 2003,...
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".