MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026100554 · doi:10.1080/19472498.2011.553497

A tale of two temples: Mathurā's Keśavadeva and Orcchā's Caturbhujadeva

2011· article· en· W2026100554 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Heidi Pauwels

Bibliographic record

VenueSouth Asian History and Culture · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicIndian and Buddhist Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMemorial University of Newfoundland
KeywordsRulerHinduismSanskritInterpretation (philosophy)HistoryAncient historyMonarchyHindiSociologyLiteratureReligious studiesPhilosophyArtLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay focuses on the last grand temple on the site now known as Krishna Janmabhūmi in Mathurā, which was built by the Orcchā ruler Vīr Singh Dev in the early seventeenth century and destroyed by Aurangzeb about half a century later. I study the motives behind the construction of this temple in conjunction with those behind the Caturbhuja temple, completed by Vīr Singh in his hometown, Orcchā, and destroyed by Shāh Jahān only three decades after its building. As does other recent research, this essay confirms that the common-place interpretation of such events of temple building and destruction as expressions of Hindu or Muslim religious sentiment needs to be problematized. This investigation of the factors that led to the building reveals a multiplicy of discourses. By using not only Persian but also Hindi and Sanskrit sources, the essay shows the complexity of motives beyond the religious rhetorics of some historiographers. It offers complementary explanations of such temple construction as a statement of dharmic kingship justifying irregularities of succession and of upward social mobility within the Mughal imperial formation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.154 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSouth Asian History and CultureSame topicIndian and Buddhist StudiesFrench-language works237,207