A Retrospective of Hindu-Christian Studies: Establishment of the Journal and Formation of the Society
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A retrospective look at "How We Do Hindu-Christian Studies" can be had by going through the issues of our journal from 1988 to the present. In the first issue of the journal the approach was described as follows: "Materials selected for publication will be balanced between historical research and contemporary practice, and, where possible, should employ analytical and theoretical analysis set within the context of our shared human experience." The issue contained two articles illustrating this approach: an overview of Hindu-Christian dialogue in India in the 1970s and 1980s by Anand Amaladass, and an assessment of the various approaches to dialogue in the modern West by Klaus Klostermaier. While Amaladass finds the focus in India in the 1980s to be on church organizations and their theology of dialogue (with some Christians linking dialogue with proselytisation), Klostermaier sees dialogue is the West occurring at the academic level in Religious Studies courses where he feels there is a greater openness and honesty "where formerly dissimulation and hypocrisy were the rule." In each tradition, says Klostermaier, our study requires scholars who are willing "to fight hard against prejudice and pretense, against petrified tradition and vested religious interest" if the Hindu-Christian dialogue is to be open and honest.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".