MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390244766 · doi:10.18732/hssa93

Astrolabe by Bulhomal and Pīr Bakhsh of 1841 CE: A Unique Testimonial to an Intercultural Collaboration

2023· article· en· W4390244766 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mubashir Abbasi, Sarma Sreeramula Rajeshwar

Bibliographic record

VenueHistory of Science in South Asia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicHistorical Astronomy and Related Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAstrolabeDevanagariSanskritAncient historyArabicHinduismHistoryIslamClassicsLiteratureArtPhilosophyReligious studiesArchaeologyLinguisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From the middle of the sixteenth century up to the end of the seventeenth, Lahore was the leading centre where Allāhdād and his descendants produced a large number of exquisitely crafted astrolabes, with legends and numerals in Arabic. In the same period, Sanskrit astrolabes with legends in Sanskrit and numerals in Devanagari were made sporadically in Rajasthan-Gujarat region. Then in the eighteenth century, the production of both types of astrolabes ended abruptly for various reasons. Towards the middle of the nineteenth century, however, both these traditions came together in the work of Bulhomal, who created some 27 instruments of diverse kinds. Entirely different from these is a large astrolabe in the creation of which people of different faiths collaborated. The astrolabe was commissioned by Mawlwī Ghulām Muḥammad, a Sunni Muslim, who held an important position at the court of the Sikh rulers of the princely state of Kapurthala, for the sake of Mubārak cAlī Khān who appears to be a member of an influential Shia Muslim family; it was designed by Bulhomal, a Hindu, and was fabricated by Pīr Bakhsh, a Muslim. Thus this astrolabe is a laudable example of intercultural collaboration. The present paper offers a full technical description against the background of Bulhomal’s other work.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistory of Science in South AsiaSame topicHistorical Astronomy and Related StudiesFrench-language works237,207