Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article addresses the significance of paradox as a steady presence in our lives. Contradictions and ambiguities often lead to aversive states of anxious uncertainty where straightforward answers are often unavailable yet sought after to alleviate existential insecurities. In conditions where narratives of ambivalence intensify, such as during the worldwide COVID-19 crises, our traditional socio-evolutionary inclinations to avoid them either through denial or active resistance become more noticeable. It also leads to distress in intersubjective spaces especially when uncertainty and perceptions of threat stand as correlates, and we start to fear what we do not understand. In this paper, I consider wisdom responses from a Buddhist perspective to help us acknowledge the value of paradox, highlighting how changes in the formulation of our self-concept can help with that. I draw upon select principles and insights from the Diamond Sutra and the Heart Sutra, two texts within the Mahaprajnaparamita sutras of Mahayana Buddhism. Through these, I examine some inherent paradoxes as vital components of a larger ontological unity, the recognition of which can act as an enabler to the Bodhisattva path. This path is worthy of exploration, allowing us to move past the need for closure and instead focus on reconciliation, disclosure, and epistemic humility.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".