Bibliographic record
Abstract
A prominent theme in studies of Islamic religio-philosophical systems has been the supposed uptake of key Greek traditions on health and the body. Even those concerned with mysticism have reflected certain ideological interests: most studies of Sufi tradition focus upon either the distinctive mystical doctrines of the group or the trance produced in their rites or the interaction of text and musical formations. This article approaches the tradition from a different perspective. It focuses its attention on key elements in Sufism, but not on either the ideological or textual dimensions. It looks to the performative aspects of dhikr and the chanters who are integrated into it, and especially to note the way in which baraka provides an underlying rationale for health/well-being for all participants (including onlookers). Further, since the dhikr goals are clearly central for all Sufis (i.e. spiritual encounters), the role of the body, body postures and ritual movements all argue for approaching and critically analysing both them and baraka for their larger delivery of meaning. All this suggests a much different mind–body relationship than encountered in the Greek tradition. Examples will be drawn from fieldwork among Morocco’s Sufi chanters.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".