Bibliographic record
Abstract
For nearly four decades, the Association for Bahá’í Studies in North America has labored to promote Bahá’í scholarly activity through a range of efforts that include encouraging young believers in their study of the Revelation and their academic pursuits, fostering approaches to assist the friends in correlating the teachings with issues arising in contemporary thought, and providing a forum for Bahá’í academics to present their work and collaborate with one another. A letter dated 24 July 2013, written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to the National Spiritual Assembly of Canada, set forth fresh insights to assist the Association in reflecting on its progress to date and its prospects for the future, centered around developing the “notion of an evolving conceptual framework.” The following are some personal thoughts about the nature of such a framework and what some of its elements might be.
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 | 0.082 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.130 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.036 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
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".