MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038778479 · doi:10.1017/s0034412510000387

The value of nature in Indian (Hindu) traditions

2010· article· en· W2038778479 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher G. Framarin

Bibliographic record

VenueReligious Studies · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicIndian and Buddhist Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHinduismValue (mathematics)Interpretation (philosophy)PhilosophyHarmIntrinsic value (animal ethics)EpistemologyMoralityKarmaConnection (principal bundle)Religious studiesTheologyLawEnvironmental ethicsMathematicsBuddhismPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Many authors claim that certain Indian (Hindu) texts and traditions deny that nature has intrinsic value. If nature has value at all, it has value only as a means tomokṣa(liberation). This view is implausible as an interpretation of any Indian tradition that accepts the doctrines ofahiṃsā(non-harm) andkarma. The proponent must explain the connection betweenahiṃsāand merit by citing the connection betweenahiṃsāandmokṣa:ahiṃsāis valuable, and therefore produces merit, becauseahiṃsāis instrumentally valuable as a means tomokṣa. Ahiṃsāis a means tomokṣa, however, because it produces merit. Hence the explanation is circular. Additionally, this view entails that morality is strictly arbitrary – it might just as well be thathiṃsā(harm) produces merit, andahiṃsāproduces demerit. An alternative interpretation that avoids these problems states that the value ofahiṃsāderives from the intrinsic value of the unharmed entities.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.018
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReligious StudiesSame topicIndian and Buddhist StudiesFrench-language works237,207