MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891431872 · doi:10.31581/jbs-1.3.5(1989)

The Role of Material Goods in Spiritual Development

2018· article· en· W2891431872 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lin Poyer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Bahá’í Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicIndian History and Philosophy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterialismObjectificationAlienationSociologyMeaning (existential)Context (archaeology)Consumption (sociology)CivilizationSociocultural evolutionEpistemologyEnvironmental ethicsSocial psychologyAestheticsPsychologySocial sciencePolitical scienceLawHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem of materialism is widely recognized as a source of dissatisfaction in industrial civilization. At the same time, mass production and modern technology are also acknowledged as providing desirable standards of health, education, and physical comfort. The challenge is to develop creative, satisfying ways to live within mass production/mass consumption society. Learning to deal appropriately with material goods is important to living in accordance with Bahá’í principles of individual spiritual growth. Understanding the symbolic dimension of goods, through insights from anthropology and psychology, provides us with a way to manage our use of possessions towards this end. Objectification—the process through which physical things are imbued with meaning in a specific sociocultural context—is a key concept in this understanding. Objectification can produce alienation, in the Marxian sense; but, used properly, the capacity of things to carry meaning has the potential to assist individuals in their personal growth. Recognition of the symbolic dimension of objects is particularly critical in enabling individuals to strive for detachment in highly materialistic societies.

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 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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Bahá’í StudiesSame topicIndian History and PhilosophyFrench-language works237,207