Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ritual is often seen as an undisputed and indisputable part of all sorts of traditions, religious and secular. However, a close look at ritual actions and texts points toward the fact that rituals not only are frequently disputed, but that they also constitute a field in which vital and sometimes even violent negotiations take place. This insight opens up fruitful new perspectives on ritual procedures, on the interactions that constitute these procedures, and on their contexts. The rituals or ritualized behavior investigated in this volume represent a broad spectrum, such as worship in a Tibetan Buddhist tradition practiced in Canada, animist mortuary rituals in northern India, a New Year’s festival in Swahili society, atonement rituals in ancient Indian texts, rituals of Tibetan “Treasure Revealers”, initiation rituals in Tibetan Buddhism and in Wiccan religion in the U.S.A., Jewish same-sex wedding rituals in the U.S.A. and Canada, rites connected to imperial power in eleventh-century China, festivities commemorating Martin Luther in the former East Germany, “hook-swinging” ritual as viewed by colonial, Brahmanic and subaltern actors in South India, the historical development of the interpretation of Indian Tantric rites, and scholarly discourse on ritual. Not only are the actions and corresponding discourses diverse, but also the materials that form the basis of the individual case studies: some contributors use texts, some analyze ritual performance; others use both, textual analysis and qualitative field study. This book shows that negotiations are ubiquitous in ritual contexts, either in relation to the ritual itself, or in relation to the realm beyond any given ritual performance. In fact, ritual’s embeddedness in negotiation processes is one of its central features.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.004 |
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".