MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019278038 · doi:10.1177/000842980303200407

Accounting for Gandhi's allegorical interpretation of the Bhagavadgītā

2003· article· en· W2019278038 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Arvind Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicIndian History and Philosophy
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretation (philosophy)HinduismLiteral (mathematical logic)PhilosophyLiteratureTheologyArtLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mahatma Gandhi is well known for offering an allegorical interpretation of the Bhagavadgī tā , whereas the more usual understanding of it in Hindu circles tends to be literal. This raises the question: what factors led Mahatma Gandhi to espouse an allegorical interpretation of the Bhagavadgī tā ? This paper concludes that Mahatma Gandhi preferred an allegorical interpretation on the basis of what he considered the "internal evidence" provided by the Mahā bhā rata and the Bhagavadgī tā and not under the influence of general exegetical trends, historical or contemporary, or of Arnold's translation or Theosophical, Jaina and Christian teachings or on account of his commitment to ahim sā .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Religion/Sciences ReligieusesSame topicIndian History and PhilosophyFrench-language works237,207