Bibliographic record
Abstract
This special issue is dedicated to the intersection of the Mīmāṃsā school (primarily focusing on Vedic exegesis) and the Dharmaśāstra school (which encompasses both treatises listing norms as well as jurisprudential reflections about such norms) and in particular to the reuse of Mīmāṃsā principles (nyāya) and patterns of reasoning within Dharmaśāstra.Within the growing (but still small) field of Dharmaśāstra and Mīmāṃsā studies, this is the first publication dealing directly with this topic.The Mīmāṃsā school is possibly the first school of Sanskrit philosophy for which we have a sūtra text as its foundation.Thus, it is no wonder that it influenced the development of various other schools.Mīmāṃsā itself emerged from a shared background of reasoning and rules whose prehistory is not completely clear, but which can be partly inferred based on the many similarities between ritual sūtras, Mīmāṃsā and Vyākaraṇa (for more on this topic, see Freschi and Portillo 2013).This shared prehistory is most likely not the only prehistory relevant for Dharmaśāstra.In fact, as highlighted by McClish among others, the Arthaśāstra tradition also merged within Dharmaśāstra (see below for more about this).The affinity of Dharmaśāstra and Mīmāṃsā, moreover, runs even deeper, since both deal with the Vedic corpus.The Mīmāṃsā school focuses on the Veda as its primary topic of investigation.The Dharmaśāstra tradition regards the Veda as either one of the two sources of dharma-related topics or as the sole one.As discussed by Olivelle (2016: 16-33), the former view prevails during the early period, such as in Āpastamba's and Gautama's Dharmasūtras, which see the other source in the memory and conduct of those who know the Veda.Āpastamba's and Gautama's intuition here is
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
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".