MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095281379 · doi:10.1163/15685152-00284p04

Gandhi and the Parable of the Prodigal Son

2020· article· en· W3095281379 on OpenAlexaff
Alex Damm

Bibliographic record

VenueBiblical Interpretation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicIndian History and Philosophy
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExegesisBiblical studiesInterpretation (philosophy)AppealPoliticsPhilosophyLiteratureApocalypticismMerge (version control)Religious studiesEpistemologyTheologyJudaismArtLawPolitical scienceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This essay seeks to emphasize the important bearing which multiple and quotidian, personal contexts have on the biblical exegesis of Mohandas K. Gandhi. The essay focuses on Gandhi’s interpretation of the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11–32), asking in particular why Gandhi’s reading departs from the parable’s literal sense. While the most evident reason for Gandhi’s distinctive interpretation is his philosophy of satyagraha or non-violent resistance, there emerge behind this appeal, several more precise contexts that plausibly contributed to Gandhi conceiving of satyagraha as the parable’s interpretive key. These contexts included political exigencies that Gandhi faced in mid-1920; his relationship with his son Harilal; and the profile of one of his interlocutors, Sir Narayan Chandavarkar. This essay emphasizes the importance of such varied and personal contexts that merge to help shape Gandhi’s interpretation, and closes with implications for further study of biblical exegesis by Gandhi and more generally in the global south.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.020
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiblical InterpretationSame topicIndian History and PhilosophyFrench-language works237,207