MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152598589 · doi:10.1177/0008429812460141

Comparing the Golden Rule in Hindu and Christian Religious Texts

2012· article· en· W2152598589 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Freek L. Bakker

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHinduismMaximReciprocity (cultural anthropology)AppealSociologyPhilosophyReligious studiesHospitalityTheologyEpistemologyHistoryTourismSocial scienceLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article compares the oldest Hindu versions of the Golden Rule found in the Mahabharata with those in the gospels. What may the Hindu texts, which usually receive little attention, contribute to the understanding of the New Testament renditions? Methodologically the article draws from Clooney’s Comparative Theology and Moyaert’s approach of hermeneutical hospitality. In the Hindu texts the rule is understood in terms of ahimsa (non-violence). This seems to be close to Luke’s version, in which the maxim is closely connected with the appeal to love one’s enemies. The Mahabharata, however, reveals also the maxim’s potency to use reciprocity as a strategy for making peace. So, the reciprocity stressed in Matthew is also important.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.010
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Religion/Sciences ReligieusesSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207