MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2614481570 · doi:10.31581/jbs-22.1-4.4(2012)

Reflections on the Epistemological Views of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá

2012· article· en· W2614481570 on OpenAlex
Mikhail Sergeev

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
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

VenueThe Journal of Bahá’í Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicIslamic Thought and Society Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntuitionEpistemologyPerceptionSociologyPsychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper discusses ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s epistemological views by addressing the four sources of knowledge as explored by Him in various talks and books. These categories include sensory perception, reason, intuition, and tradition. This discourse systematizes ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s epistemology in the context of global philosophy, focusing on a number of issues that are of special concern for modern western thought. These concerns deal with subjects such as the importance of scriptures and the limitations of human knowledge. The paper also analyzes the distinction between objective and subjective knowledge, and between human and divine knowledge.

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)0.002
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.472
Threshold uncertainty score0.813

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.393
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.008 · 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