MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889666555 · doi:10.31581/jbs-1.1.2(1988)

Reflections on the Spiritual Dynamics of the Bahá’í Faith

2018· article· en· W2889666555 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alessandro Bausani

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Bahá’í Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReligious Studies and Spiritual Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumilityFaithObedienceAction (physics)IntrospectionPrayerMysticismPower (physics)Context (archaeology)MeditationPhilosophyEnvironmental ethicsSociologyEpistemologyPsychologyReligious studiesTheologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

True spiritual force has the power to change matter. The spiritual force released by Bahá’u’lláh has the power to change the entire world. Humans, unaided, cannot understand the fundamental problems of mankind; a prophet like Bahá’u’lláh gives us the power both to understand human problems and to correct them. Values do not derive from the individual but from the central Force of the universe: God. Only the religious mind can place moral issues like sin and death in the context of the realities of the universe. The acquisition of virtues such as a love of order, moderation, obedience, and humility are among the requisites for preparing the human heart for the new society Bahá’u’lláh’s teachings will bring. However, religion should be practical and other-oriented, not mystical and introspective. The spiritual force released by the good actions of believers has a more pervasive influence than the same action of a nonbeliever. The gathering together of Bahá’ís in prayer will augment these spiritual forces and dispel ignorant ideas of religion.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.025
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.226 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Bahá’í StudiesSame topicReligious Studies and Spiritual PracticesFrench-language works237,207