Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>In the second decade of the fourteenth century, twenty years after ascending the throne in Delhi, Sultan ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Khaljī sent the former slave Malik Kāfūr on a series of southern campaigns, resulting in attacks on Warangal, Dvarasamudra, and Madurai. Even though the ostensible purpose was plunder, and Malik Kāfūr’s forces reinstated the defeated local kings while extracting tribute, these southern expeditions represent a dramatic expansion of Indo-Islamic power into the Deccan. Madurai, further south and controlled by the Pandyas, proved to be more recalcitrant than the other sites. Malik Kāfūr attacked Madurai in 1311 and sacked the nearby Srirangam temple, but it was not Malik Kāfūr but Ulugh Khān in 1323 who finally brought Madurai under Sultanate control. Madurai became independent between 1333 and 1334 and was ultimately conquered again by Vijayanagara forces in 1371. In this paper, I explore two Sanskrit literary responses to the conquests of Madurai that differ remarkably in genre and mood. A careful juxtaposition and analysis of the two poems presents a challenge to the dominant scholarly approach to such narratives as ‘epics of resistance’ and the concomitant assumption that representation of conflict reveals the existence of mutually exclusive and hostile ‘Hindu’ and ‘Muslim’ cultures.</p>
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".