:Emplacing a Pilgrimage: The Ōyama Cult and Regional Religion in Early Modern Japan.<i>(Harvard East Asian Monographs, number 297.)</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It seems not long ago that studies of Japanese religions either concentrated on theological issues and the transmission of doctrine (a kind of cultural history) or focused on a single religious thinker and his disciples (a kind of intellectual biography). In Japan, Fumio Tamamuro pioneered an alternative approach, in which he concentrated less on spiritually oriented writings than on local documents that disclosed the practical aspects of everyday religious life, such as the details of temple administration and finances, the often thorny relations between religious institutions and their local and supralocal authorities, and strategies for the organization and servicing of parishioners. One advantage of Tamamuro's approach is that it avoids the inevitably untidy taxonomy that attends most writings on Japanese religions, as if these were clearly distinct from each other when, in fact, their boundaries have almost always been porous. Barbara Ambros acknowledges both her indebtedness to Tamamuro's regional approach and the inspiration of Allan Grappard's notion of the combinative nature of Japanese religiosity at the outset of her study of Ōyama, a mountain substantially closer to Edo (today's Tokyo) than the more famous Mount Fuji and for over twelve hundred years the site of a fascinating and surprisingly diverse array of religious activities. Ambros traces the mountain's religious history from its earliest references as the locus of medieval mountain-hermit spiritualists (yamabushi), through its transformation in the seventeenth century into a regional academy of the Kogi stream in Shingon Buddhism and its emergence as a popular site for early modern pilgrimage, to its reconfiguration as a Shinto center in the 1870s and 1880s by the Meiji government.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".