The Psychology of Victorian Buddhism and Rudyard Kipling’s Kim
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deanna K. Kreisel, “The Psychology of Victorian Buddhism and Rudyard Kipling’s Kim” (pp. 227–259) This essay demonstrates that Rudyard Kipling’s Kim (1901) engages deeply with several aspects of Buddhist thought that were also of central concern to nineteenth-century British psychology. It describes several central tenets of Buddhism as understood by Victorian exegetes, paying particular attention to the ways this discourse became surprisingly approbatory over the course of the century. It also performs close readings of three key passages in Kipling’s novel dealing with identity, will, and self-discipline that illuminate the author’s understanding of the subtleties of Buddhist thought. Its attention to the ways in which Kipling’s novel engages Asian religious practice, particularly the “esoteric” practices of meditation and trance, complicates an entrenched reading of the novel as championing British triumphalism; it does so by challenging earlier interpretations of the religious elements in Kim as constituting straightforward evidence for the novel’s endorsement of the imperial project.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it