MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evolution and Degeneration of Indian Classical Dance: A Critical Study

2023· article· en· W4386804712 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal For Multidisciplinary Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDiversity and Impact of Dance
Canadian institutionsLa Cité Collégiale
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDanceIdeologyHinduismOriginalityPeriod (music)AestheticsHistorySociologyArtLiteratureLawPhilosophyAnthropologyPolitical sciencePoliticsReligious studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The trends in Indian classical dance reveal that its structure is highly disorganized. Indian classical dance is a constantly evolving field that dominates opportunities and ideological grounds. Dance genres are the most exemplary manifestations of human aesthetic originality and freedom and dancers usually fail to achieve respect and equality as a result of the reformation of expressing diverse roles. Leela Samson, a dance critic, stated until the early 20th century, the dance was a vital part of temple ritual. A period of degeneration, however, set in during British rule. “The British anti-notch campaign was encouraging a reform of Indian society. The origins of the Jogini can be traced back to mediaeval South India. Regarded as temple property, the major responsibility of a Jogini — also known as a 'devadasi' — would be to participate in cultural activities pertaining to the shrine. Dance degenerated from being a heavenly creation to being disrepute and then regained its respect.Mughal India was awash with courtesans in both Hindu and Muslim courts.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.264
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.198
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.343 · 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