Bibliographic record
Abstract
While there have been a number of specialized books in the field of comparative philosophy, and many in the field of comparative religion, there are few scholars who can address both disciplines. Furthermore, when these disciplines are virtually mutually exclusive, as in Western academia, a full appreciation of non-Western approaches to either religion or philosophy is not easily attained, and distortions, such as appropriation, often occur. Within the last ten years, there has been a concerted effort on the part of a number of Western scholars to try to address these deficiencies.A unique workshop held at the University of Calgary in 2007 marked the beginning of an interdisciplinary project to bring together scholars from both fields for discussion on a regular basis. After Appropriation consists of thirteen essays stemming from the workshop, each of which addresses an issue or illustrates a problem in the interdisciplinary field of comparative religion and philosophy as it is presently conceived. Many misappropriations and exclusions have arisen from the Western tendency to reduce and manipulate the ideas and values of non-Western religions and philosophies to fit within Western concepts and categories. How might comparative philosophy and religion change if the concepts and categories of non-Western philosophies and religions were taken as primary? This book explores this question through analytic and phenomenological Western approaches, infused with fresh strategies and modalities derived from or inspired by non-Western traditions. In a world of increasing pluralism and continuing globalization, there is a growing need to elevate discussion of these issues to a more sophisticated level. A truly groundbreaking collection, After Appropriation inaugurates an entirely new integrative discipline of comparative religion and philosophy, and the exceptional calibre and wide spectrum of the book's scholarship will stimulate and propel further interest in this pivotal and fruitful direction. Contributors: Tamara Albertini Arindam Chakrabarti Francis X. Clooney Christopher G. Framarin Katrin Froese Morny Joy Chen-kuo Lin Dan Lusthaus Michael McGhee Michael Oppenheim Tinu Ruparell Vincent Shen Ahmad F. Yousif
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 0.033 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".