MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990364555 · doi:10.33227/auifd.593650

Life through Death in Rumi’s Story of the Boatman and the Grammarian: A Thematic and Symbolic Analysis

2019· article· en· W2990364555 on OpenAlexaff
Halil ŞİMŞEK

Bibliographic record

VenueAnkara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamilies in Therapy and Culture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMysticismTheme (computing)ParallelsPhilosophyPoetryLiteratureMindsetTheologyEpistemologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The following study examines the story/parable of the Grammarian and the Boatman within the Mathnavī of Rumi. We have striven to provide an account of the allegorical aspect of the story and the messages that Rumi attempted to convey. We demonstrated that the primary objective of the story is to signify the Sufi concept of maḥv (self-effacement/annihilation) and prioritize it in the life of the Sufi disciple. We examined and analyzed how the theme of maḥv is presented through an earthly experience, and explored the symbols Rumi, and the Sufis for that matter, utilized in conveying their teachings. We have also drawn parallels with Qur’anic verses, prophetic teachings, and the teachings of earlier Sufi masters. The Sufi epistemological approach, the experiential knowledge, has been the primary examination of our research, and we drew attention to how the Sufi masters imparted knowledge to their audience. Other poetic formulations of Rumi in various parts of Mathnavī have been enlisted to elucidate the author’s mindset on the theory of knowledge. Similar attestations of other Sufi mystics have also been utilized in this survey and the mutual objectives of other Sufis have been analyzed. We have striven to maintain an analytical approach and provided an expository formulation of the Sufis on the nature of epistemology.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.300
Threshold uncertainty score0.755

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnkara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi DergisiSame topicFamilies in Therapy and CultureFrench-language works237,207