Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many kinds of act we recognize as performative and help constitute religious experiences all over the world. This article focuses on the experiences of drummers, dancers and other participants at a Sufi shrine in Lahore, Pakistan. The readers of this journal are likely to have encountered historical debates concerning the appropriateness of music in Islam, as well as discussions regarding what qualifies as recitation, as music, or as noise. Understanding these debates and semantic concerns is an essential part of gaining insight into important aspects of Sufi Islamic religious experiences. In this article I invite the reader to contemplate performance not only in reference to music and dance themselves but also with respect to the creative non-fictional form in which I present them ethnographically. This article is adapted from my forthcoming book, The Voice in the Drum: Music, language, and emotion in Islamicate South Asia (2014), a hybrid piece of creative and analytic writing in the form of a novel. It is based on my fieldwork in India and Pakistan over a 28-month period in late 1996 and on shorter visits extending into the mid- and late 2000s.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".