MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131249067 · doi:10.1177/1354067x04040927

Core Versus Periphery: Dynamics of Personhood Over the Life-Course for a Gujarati Hindu Woman

2004· article· en· W2131249067 on OpenAlexaff
Vaishali V. Raval, Michael J. Kral

Bibliographic record

VenueCulture & Psychology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonhoodHinduismSociologyExistentialismMetaphorCollectivismEpistemologyIdeologyMiddle classGender studiesNarrativeIndividualismPhilosophyLinguisticsLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Popular conceptions of Hindu Indian womanhood suggest that these women are best conceptualized within a network of social roles. These conceptions, for the large part, are based on ideological descriptions or normative patterns, depict Indian women as a homogeneous group, and are relatively static. Conceptualized within the framework of existential philosophy, in this article we explore an urban middle-class Hindu woman’s conceptions of herself and the notion of change. Using the metaphor of a tree, she describes her existence in terms of two main components: one that represents the core and the other that constitutes the periphery. She perceives family roles at the periphery, while considering her soul as the center of her existence, which organizes various roles into an integrated whole. Both individuality and connectivity are integrated in her depiction of Hindu Indian womanhood with their relative emphasis changing over the life-course. This narrative, along with our analysis and broader discussion of problems with research on personhood, suggests the need to expand the theoretical and methodological focus to obtain a more complete understanding of personhood in collectivist cultures.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.372
Threshold uncertainty score0.590

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.344 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations27
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCulture & PsychologySame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207