Bibliographic record
Abstract
omen from urban middle class Smarta Brahmin communities in India have traditionally undertaken a category of rituals that serve to safeguard and thus prolong the lives of their husbands.In this paper, I examine Satabhisekam, the ritual remarriage of couples.I argue that Satabhisekam should be considered within the same category as Brahmanic rites such as the well-known women's ritual fasts, vratas or nonpus, which preserve an auspicious, domestic state for the wife.Although Satabhisekam differs from women' s ritual fasting because both husband and wife participate in it together, fundamentally it serves the end-namely, to prolong a married status for the woman.The strong influence wielded by Smarta Brahmans in South India as 'cultural brokers' has lead to the practice of traditionally Brahmin rites, such as Satabhisekam, by a variety of caste groups.Other caste groups, such as Mudaliyars, Cheggiyars, and VSlalars, emulate Smarta Brahmin rituals, echo their ideas concerning ideal womanhood, and reiterate the emphasis on the domestic roles of women.SmSrtas, also known as Aiyars, are a community with roots in Tamil, Telugu, and Kannada speaking areas of peninsular South Asia, and constitute one of the largest Brahmin communities in all of India.My work on Satabhisekam takes as its starting point Bourdieu's understanding of ritual as a practice that produces and reproduces meaning.1 Along these lines, I suggest that the performance of this ritual serves to reify and perpetuate ideas of marriage, womanhood, and domesticity already prevalent in traditional South Indian Hindu orthodoxy.In order to understand the way these rituals and social ideas are constructed, I begin with some comments on the social and religious significance of marriage, as well as the ritually prominent position occupied by married women in urban middle class Brahmin society.This will lead to 10. Reynolds, "The Auspicious Married Woman," 36.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".