MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386764409 · doi:10.26443/arc.v35i.551

Convergence and Divergence of Religious Concepts

2007· article· en· W4386764409 on OpenAlexaff
Perwaiz Hayat

Bibliographic record

VenueArc The Journal of the School of Religious Studies · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDivergence (linguistics)Convergence (economics)MathematicsApplied mathematicsMathematical economicsEconomicsPhilosophyLinguisticsMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ihis paper will attempt to study the theme of faqir in the work Sual-ojccwab and in the South Asian religious traditions contemporary to it.The work Sual-o-jawab is a transcription in Persian of a series of interfaith dialogues that took place between Dara Shukoh1, the crown prince and son of Mughal emperor Shah Jahan, and a Hindu Yogi, Baba Lai Das.2A majority of scholars believe that this event took place in the year 1064 A.H./1653 C.E., in the city of Lahore.In the dialogue, Dara made a deliberate effort to learn about Hinduism from a Hindu Yogi, and in doing so set an example that cannot be found in Mughal history before or after him.Massignon has rightly pointed out that the spirit of the dialogue is one of learning from an authority and a friend, which is what differentiates it from the mode of debate or confrontation that preceded and followed it.3Both Lai Das and Dara show a remarkable and cordial attitude to each other, maintaining exemplary broadmindedness toward and appreciation of each other's religion.As much as Dara saw 1.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.014
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.340 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArc The Journal of the School of Religious StudiesSame topicReligion and Society InteractionsFrench-language works237,207