MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094009221 · doi:10.12797/cis.22.2020.01.08

Exit God: Border Crossings in Jīrṇoddhāra Procedure

2020· article· en· W3094009221 on OpenAlexaff
Libbie Mills

Bibliographic record

VenueCracow Indological Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicIndian and Buddhist Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersArts and Humanities Research Council
KeywordsSubject (documents)Order (exchange)Process (computing)PhilosophyTheologyHistoryComputer scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exit God: Border Crossings in Jīrṇoddhāra Procedure
 Jīrṇoddhāra, the disposal and replacement of an old idol or temple, necessitates the temporary departure of the deity from that place. The ritual for this departure will be followed as it is reported in two texts: the Piṅgalāmata and the Tantrasamuccaya. The Piṅgalāmata is useful in understanding the process of jīrṇoddhāra: the text defines the process, explains the need for it, rationalises the ritual procedure, and gives a brief account of it. The description in the Tantrasamuccaya gives finer detail on how the procedure should be carried out. Unlike other records of the subject, that of the Tantrasamuccaya does not glide over the most important moments of transition for the deity, but stops to consider them in depth, giving attention to his displacement in terms of saṅkocana (contraction), niṣkrāmaṇa (expulsion), and sūtracchidā (the severing of the cord). While this pair of texts offers the material in contrasting forms, the two sets of teaching are found to be congruent one with the other, making them companion pieces that give us a good view into what it means to invite the deity to leave. We find that in order for the deity to cross concentric borders to leave his base, the human ritual officiant must make a crossing too, and, indeed, the borders themselves will be moved around.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.210
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.134 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCracow Indological StudiesSame topicIndian and Buddhist StudiesFrench-language works237,207