MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283822155 · doi:10.1177/00084298221105919

La maternité dans le canon bouddhiste pāli : choix et chemins

2022· article· en· W4283822155 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pascale F. Engelmajer

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMarriage and Sexual Relationships
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGautama BuddhaBuddhismAgency (philosophy)Context (archaeology)HierarchySociologyGender studiesHumanitiesPsychologyPhilosophyEpistemologyTheologyHistoryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the themes of choice and agency in the context of motherhood as it appears in the Pāli Buddhist texts. I focus on two characters, Māya, the Buddha’s birth mother and Visākhā, one of his best known female lay disciples. Both of these women are known primarily because of their connection to the Buddha, and their spiritual path is neglected, or even disdained, because they are considered as secondary and auxiliary characters whose only purpose is to support the men they surround (Gross, 1995). In this article, I propose a “matricentric” feminist approach (O’Reilly, 2014) to challenge this attitude, and the patriarchal hierarchy that underlies it. Based on this radical interpretation of Buddhist principles, I show how the Buddhist path appears, in the Pāli texts, as a “mothering path” that a number of women, like Māya and Visākhā, choose and undertake as a spiritual path, thereby recognizing women’s agency as mothers and the validity and value of mothering in a soteriological context.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.113
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Religion/Sciences ReligieusesSame topicMarriage and Sexual RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207