MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060854616 · doi:10.1558/jsrnc.v4i2.139

Forest Paradigms in <i>Vrat Kathas</i>

2010· article· en· W2060854616 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Menzies

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for the Study of Religion Nature and Culture · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAnthropological Studies and Insights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHinduismEliteSociologyGender studiesPsychologyPhilosophyReligious studiesPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vrat kathas (Hindu women’s domestic literature) present the forest as a place for the reception of religious knowledge. These stories place themselves on par with divinely revealed texts by emulating certain themes found there. The vrat kathas, moreover, present women as ritualists whose actions are more effective than are men’s. While the vrat kathas do seem to “emulate” the male models, they also posit superiority of both the woman as a ritualist and the vrat as a ritual. Thus, the vrat kathas posit the superiority of vrat rituals, vrat stories, and vrat performers as superior to the “elite” male forms they are ostensibly emulating.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.441
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.300 · 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.

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

Citations18
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for the Study of Religion Nature and CultureSame topicAnthropological Studies and InsightsFrench-language works237,207