Bibliographic record
Abstract
Editorial Mahinda Deegalle This volume contains four articles that trace various facets of Mahāyāna Buddhism with a focus on Chinese Buddhism, Śāntidēva, Dōgen, and comparative work. This also includes three collections of conference papers. The first collection of papers celebrates a special occasion by honoring Professor Rita M. Gross, one of the previous editors of Buddhist-Christian Studies. On Friday, 29 October 2010, at the meeting of the Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies held at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion, Atlanta, Georgia, her colleagues and friends presented a collection of papers celebrating her contributions to various scholarly disciplines. Because Professor Gross's contributions overlap significantly with feminist movement and issues of women and religion, the co-convener of the event, along with the Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies, was the Woman and Religion Section of the American Academy of Religion. The felicitation panel included Kathleen Erndl, Nancy Falk, Judith Simmer-Brown, Rosemary Radford Reuther, Paul Knitter, and Terry Muck. Professor Gross herself responded to the panel and Professor Miriam Levering, the president of the Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies, moderated the session. After the conference, the authors revised the papers for this volume, and Terry Muck was instrumental in getting these papers assembled as a collection. The second collection of papers—"Buddhist-Christian Mutual Theologizing/Buddhologizing"—is based on the panel titled "Can/Should Buddhists and Christians Do Theology/Buddhology Together?" held on Saturday, 30 October 2010 at the annual meeting of the Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies. Four scholars of Buddhism and Christianity—John Makransky, Grace Burford, Wendy Farley, and Amos Yong—joined the panel to speak and share their insights on doing theology and Buddhology together. Each offered reflective thoughts about the possibilities of mutual theologizing among Buddhists and Christians. Their approaches as well as their answers were varied. Terry C. Muck, the vice president of the Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies, moderated the session. The third set of papers—"The Boundaries of Knowledge in Buddhism, Christianity, and Science"—was originally presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies held at the AAR in Montreal in November 2009. The presenters engaged with reviewing articles in the volume edited by Paul D. Numrich titled The Boundaries of Knowledge in Buddhism, Christianity, and Science (Göttingen: [End Page vii] Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2008). The collection addresses Buddhist, Christian, and scientific insights on the inadequacies of conceptualization and language for understanding reality. I am thankful to Professors Terry C. Muck and Paul D. Numrich for assembling the conference papers included in this volume. [End Page viii] Mahinda Deegalle Bath Spa University Copyright © 2011 University of Hawai'i Press
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.231 | 0.151 |
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".