Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various studies in recent times have shown how sociohistorical proclivities played an important role in the acceptance or rejection of cross-cultural ideas in Mughal scientific discourses. The cultural patronage of the Mughal courts financed the production and propagation of certain scientific texts deemed intellectually and politically expedient. Among such texts were two seventeenth-century astronomical table-texts, Mullā Farīd's Persian Zīj-i Šāh Jahānī and its Sanskrit translation in Nityānanda's Siddhāntasindhu, both produced at the court of the Mughal Emperor Šāh Jahān. In this paper, we present, for the very first time, a comparative survey of the canon (text) of these two works to reveal the intimacy between the translated Sanskrit and its Persian original. The paper includes brief biographies of both astronomers, a summary of the salient features of the canons, a description of the manuscripts utilised and our transcription and transliteration schemes, along with a detailed comparison of the individual chapters in these canons. We also provide separate appendices with discussions on select aspects from these chapters. We note that this paper forms the first part in a two-part study, with a second forthcoming paper surveying the tables in these two texts (accompanied with mathematical annotations).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".