MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2620096526 · doi:10.1163/22118349-00601006

Summits Where Souls Gather

2017· article· en· W2620096526 on OpenAlexaff
Shayne A. P. Dahl

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Religion in Japan · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJapanese History and Culture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPilgrimageSummitGriefHistoryMeaning (existential)MemorializationEthnographyTransformative learningSociologyEnvironmental ethicsAncient historyGeographyArchaeologyPolitical scienceCartographyPhilosophyLawPsychologyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rituals have played a vital role in the wake of the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear disasters that struck northeastern Japan on 11 March 2011 (subsequently referred to as “3.11”). Rituals have enabled survivors to differentiate social order from the immediate chaos of disaster, to mourn, to overcome grief, and to exorcise the spirits of the disaster dead. Yet, much remains to be learned about the transformative potential of ritual after 3.11. The significance of pilgrimage, for instance, which is a prominent aspect of religious practice in Japan, has received minimal attention. In this article, I draw on ethnographic fieldwork carried out in Dewa Sanzan, a sacred mountain range in Yamagata Prefecture, to discuss mountain pilgrimage for post-disaster memorialization. I argue that the event of 3.11 expanded the ontological meaning of the summit of Gassan 月山 (Mount Moon), thought to be an axis between the world of the living and that of the ancestral dead. Pilgrimage to the peak of Gassan has become a path of remembrance and overcoming, a formula for posthumous care, and an act of hope in post-disaster Japan.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.006

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Religion in JapanSame topicJapanese History and CultureFrench-language works237,207