Bibliographic record
Abstract
THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY has a long history of intersections with the academic study of religion. Its “Second Object”—“to encourage the study of comparative religion, philosophy, and science” (Dixon 2001, 4) —plunged Theosophists into many (often acrimonious) debates with both scholars and believers. Although the Theosophical Society had no dogmas, it developed a version of the “divine wisdom” that Theosophists claimed contained the “the esoteric truths of all religions, philosophies, and scientific systems... which, they argued, had been best preserved in the great spiritual traditions of the East” (Dixon 2001, 4). This project was a distinctively colonial one, but it was also one characterized by “‘cultural entanglement,’... [a] multidirectional process of cultural transfer in which all participants are [at least partially] a product of their encounter” and in which Asian, European, and American actors all participated, though unevenly (Chajes 2021, 232). The Theosophical study of...
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".