MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123906401 · doi:10.54692/ajss.2020.04031212

A Review of Archaeological Reports and Literature on the Gandhara Sculpture Collection of the Royal Ontario Museum

2020· review· en· W3123906401 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Irfan Ullah, Muhammad Akram Soomro, Mudassar Zulfiqar

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Journal of Social Sciences (AJSS ) · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEurasian Exchange Networks
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSculptureGautama BuddhaEmpireArchaeologyAncient historyBuddhismArtHistoryVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review paper focuses on a forty-three-piece collection of Gandhara sculpture in the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, Canada. Although individual pieces of Gandhara sculpture are widely known to scholars, but much of the collection of the Gandhara sculpture of the Royal Ontario Museum is unknown to scholars. In this paper these sculptures have been described and analysed as a collection. The paper is organised on Gandhara ancient history, physical geography, and the history of the Buddha image in ancient subcontinent Pakistan in South Asia. Emphasis is placed on the era of the Kushan Empire from the 1st to 4th century AD when the school of Gandhara sculpture achieved its highest levels of production and craftsmanship. The Gandhara School of sculpture produced work continuously for at least six centuries and reached its peak of achievement during the era of the Kushan Empire that dominated Central Asia and Northern sub-continent India-Pakistan from the 1st to 4th centuries AD.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.020
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.298 · 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
GenreReview

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 venueAcademic Journal of Social Sciences (AJSS )Same topicEurasian Exchange NetworksFrench-language works237,207