MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074311131 · doi:10.1177/0008429814526141

The “Famous Places” of Japanese Buddhism: Representations of Urban Temple Life in Early Modern Guidebooks

2014· article· en· W2074311131 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kevin Bond

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Tourism and Spaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorshipBuddhismEntertainmentTourismRecreationCommodificationReputationBourgeoisieCelebrity cultureNationalismAdvertisingAestheticsArtSociologyHistoryMedia studiesVisual artsSocial sciencePolitical scienceLawEconomyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the commercial and recreational cultures of the urban Buddhist temple during Japan’s Edo or early modern period (1603–1868) as depicted in popular guidebooks to famous places ( meisho ki). Encouraged by advances in travel and communication, and a vibrant bourgeois culture, meisho guidebooks presented religious sites to the common public not as static, immobile spaces catering only to otherworldly spiritual concerns, but as open and elastic geographies simultaneously offering immediate material rewards and leisurely and commercial attractions to visitors. As unique media of local religion, guidebooks reflect how the reputation and allure of popular Buddhist temples among the general public were driven by the commodification of local legends and objects of worship, as well as material pleasures of religious spaces. This paper argues the importance of guidebooks in the production of public knowledge and expectation about religious sites in early modern Japan. These guides reveal material concerns and entertainment not as having been antithetical to the operation of Buddhist institutions, but rather as supports for the spread of Buddhist teachings and popularization of deity worship among the urban populace.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.010
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Religion/Sciences ReligieusesSame topicReligious Tourism and SpacesFrench-language works237,207