Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article contributes to a growing body of anthropological work on the senses and on yoga as an experiential, embodied practice. It began as an inquiry into the oxymoronic lumping of movement and stillness in yoga teachers’ suggestion to “move into stillness.” Through an autoethnographic description of my sweaty participation in a hot yoga community of the Greater Toronto Area, my aim is to explore this particular relation between movement and stillness. I first discuss my contention that hot yoga is a “kinaesthetic culture” (Samudra 2008:666)—a culture mediated by movement that highly values a sense of motion as a way of knowing—that considers body, mind, and breath as interconnected. I then elaborate on a sensory model specific to its practice, and further argue that yoga cannot be adequately represented by the limits of a Western five‐sense model, based on binary oppositions of movement/stillness and mind/body, which problematically excludes kinaesthesia from its sensorium. Finally, I return to my initial inquiry to discuss how the embodied mutual constitution of movement and stillness actually constitutes, in my view, the epitome of a larger biosocial configuration of a yogic way of moving and sensing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".