MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996073670 · doi:10.1163/25425552-12340006

From Adam to ʿĀdil Shāh: Rethinking Inter-Religious Encounter in the Tārīkh-i Firishteh

2018· article· en· W2996073670 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of South Asian Intellectual History · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEurasian Exchange Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipSanskritNarrativeLegitimationPhilosophySociologyTheologyEpistemologyLiteratureLinguisticsArtLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Despite the Tārīkh-i Firishteh ’s continued importance for scholarship on early-modern South Asia, little attention has been paid to analyzing the text’s introduction, where its author, Muḥammad Qāsim Astarābādī (Firishteh), articulates a conception of historical time in part by critiquing the Mahabharata . Existing scholarship on the Introduction has invoked the conceptual framework of ‘encounters’ between Persianate and Sanskritic cultural spheres, where Firishteh’s critique of the Mahabharata is made possible through Mughal engagement with Sanskrit texts. By analyzing two registers of the Introduction—tārīkh as a mode of historical narration central to dynastic legitimation, and Abū al-Fażl’s use of the Mahabharata as a way to critique certain Abrahamic conceptions of genesis—this paper suggests that the language of ‘encounter’ is ultimately ill-suited to understanding the Introduction’s most controversial passages.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.535
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0020.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.248 · 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