MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2346731574 · doi:10.1525/nr.2016.19.4.33

“Theosophical” Artistic Networks in the Americas, 1920–1950

2016· article· en· W2346731574 on OpenAlex
Massimo Introvigne

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNova Religio The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReligious Studies and Spiritual Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatin AmericansSpiritualityPoliticsPositivismSociologyArt historyPolitical scienceReligious studiesEnvironmental ethicsLawArtPhilosophyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Latin American scholars have discussed interbellum “Theosophical networks” interested in new forms of spirituality as alternatives to Catholicism, positivism and Marxism. In this article I argue that these networks included not only progressive intellectuals and political activists but also artists in Latin America, the United States and Canada, and that their interests in alternative spirituality contributed significantly to certain artistic currents. I discuss three central locations for these networks, in part involving the same artists: revolutionary Mexico in the 1920s; New York in the late 1920s and 1930s; and New Mexico in the late 1930s and 1940s. The Theosophical Society, the Delphic Society, Agni Yoga and various Rosicrucian organizations attracted several leading American artists involved in the networks.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.280
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.237 · 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