Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scholars were not aware of the Varddhana ruling house of Aulikaras1 till the discovery of Risthal stone inscription. Even after the discovery of three inscriptions of Yaśodharman in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, and in spite of a specific use of the phrase Aulikara-lānchhanah for Yaśodharman in one of the inscriptions, scholars could not link him with another ruling house popularly known as the Varman branch2 of the ruling Aulikaras as the names of all the kings of this family end in ‘varman’. Nilakantha Sastri remarks, “Yaśodharman of Malwa stands alone without predecessors or successors.”3 R.C. Majumdar also states, “he rose and fell like a meteor between AD 530 and 540 and his empire perished with him.”4 But with the discovery of Risthal stone slab inscription dated Mālava Samvat 572 in 1983, came to light an entire new line of six Aulikara rulers, and the last of them, namely Prakāśadharman, was apparently the predecessor of YaśodharmanVishnuvarddhana. It has set to rest all the speculation about the ancestry of Yaśodharman. Now scholars generally accept that he belonged to the line of Aulikara rulers mentioned in the Risthal stone inscription, which is different from that of the Varman branch of the Aulikaras. The relationship between these two ruling families has become a hotly debated topic among scholars. None of the two houses has any name which is common in their respective genealogies and there is no specific evidence to establish a direct link between the two, except that these two houses belonged to the same Mālava stock and both houses had the same family appellation, ‘Aulikara’, which both of them have used at least once in their inscriptions. It thus appears, at least in the present state of our knowledge that the two Aulikara houses were not related to each other in any way except that they belonged to the same clan.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.003 |
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".