Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the article the introduction of the Nanakshahi calendar in 1998 (amended in 2003) is considered as an attempt of unification of the Sikh community, and formation of single-form Sikh identity. The evolution of a Sikh community is a long process and the result of the combination of different trends. The community of Sikhs started as the sect in Hinduism in time of Guru Nanak (1469 - 1539) but developed as a new religion under the leadership of his successors, known as the Gurus. Dates of main historical events of the Sikhs together with agricultural and New Year celebrations (Baisakhi, Diwali, Holi) became main festivals of the Sikh year. Gurpurbs or memorial days of the Sikh Gurus are also important part of the Sikh religious year. The matter is complicated by the activity of the Sikhs in diaspora. Recently Sikh religious authorities have introduced Sikh Nanakshahi calendar to create religious boundaries between the Sikhs and the Hindus. Indo-Canadian Sikh Pal Singh Purewal suggested mathematically correct Nanakshahi calendar based on tropical rather than sideral year. He suggested that this calendar is more correct than the North Indian calendar and the one different from that of the Hindus. His opponents claim that it is identical to Christian calendar. In 2003 this calendar was put in force. However, some Sikh festivals are still celebrated in old manner according to the old Vikram (Bikrami) North Indian calendar. Sikh communities in India and in the diaspora are divided now over the Nanakshahi calendar and days of gurpurbs.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".