Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study traces the emergence of the ego/selfideain Buddhist experience-based and processoriented thinking (rDzogs-chen). This is thinking that is primarily concerned with understanding and less so with establishing and being satisfied with a theoretical system, one that inevitably remains reductionist and, for this reason, fails to explain or make sense of what matters most to any living system-such as a human being. Because of its dynamic character, rDzogs-chen thinking avoids the pitfall of concretizing the cognitive aspect of the living, variously called a mind, consciousness, ego or self, into some homuncular entity, and of assuming this entity to reside in one's head as a kind of passive spectator. Not only did Buddhist thinking in general, and rDzogs-chen thinking in particular, conceive of"mind" or "consciousness" as a complexity of functions reacting and responding to each other and forming together the idea of an ego/self, but also, in this respect, it anticipated and antedated the findings of modern phenomenology with its differentiation into an ego/self (in small letters) as a limitation of the Self(with a capital letter) that is neither egocentric nor egological nor logocentric. In rDzogs-chen thought even the Self is a barrier that has to be overcome in order to become ek-statically open.
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 | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".