MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330536415 · doi:10.1086/ahr.117.3.918

Urs App . The Birth of Orientalism . (Encounters with Asia.) Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 2010. Pp. xviii, 550. $79.95.

2012· article· en· W2330536415 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas Dew

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Historical Review · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Maritime and Colonial Histories
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrientalismEnlightenmentIndusSanskritHistoryBuddhismAncient historyChristianityNothingChinaClassicsReligious studiesPhilosophyLiteratureTheologyArtArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urs App's book offers an account of eighteenth-century European (mostly French) thinkers who wrote on the religions and philosophies of Asia east of the Indus River, particularly the attempt to fit Hinduism and Buddhism into an overarching history of culture. The seventeenth century had seen a certain amount of European engagement with Arabic and Persian texts, and by 1700 there was a Jesuit-fueled explosion of interest in China (especially Confucius). It was during the eighteenth century, however, that the degree of European engagement with Indian textual traditions saw the greatest growth, from almost nothing at the century's beginning to, by its end, the work of William Jones and others on the connection between Sanskrit and Greek. App's argument mirrors that of the Enlightenment tradition in European Indology that he reconstructs. Enlightened thinkers from Voltaire onward used Indian ancient texts to “relativize” Christianity as part of an emergent comparative history of...

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.016

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Historical ReviewSame topicGlobal Maritime and Colonial HistoriesFrench-language works237,207