MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392327071 · doi:10.51644/9780889208520-002

Preface

2006· book-chapter· en· W4392327071 on OpenAlexaffabout
Harold Coward, Terence Penelhum

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReligious Studies and Spiritual Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In September of 1976 a group of some fifty scholars and practising mystics gathered at the University of Calgary.The chief objective of the Conference was to ponder and assess the nature of mysticism in its Eastern, Western and North American Indian forms.The method the Conference followed was somewhat unusual in that it aimed at a dialogue between the practising mystics and the scholars.After Professor Principe's general introduction to "Mysticism: Its Meaning and Varieties" the practising mystics each spoke about their own personal experience.Then it was the scholars' turn to analyze the data of personal experience presented by the mystics.This was the first formal step in the dialogue.It was immediately followed by the second formal step -a response from the mystics: Did the scholar in his presentation understand the data of the mystics' personal experiences?Was the scholarly analysis perceptive or did it miss the point?By following this format in the order of speakers, i.e., mystic, scholar, mystic, scholar, the Conference formally established the desired dialogue: the scholar attempting to be true to the data of personal experience presented by the mystic; the mystic, in response, acting as a check on the academic interpretation offered by the scholar.Of course, once established by the Conference speakers, the dialogue continued in the discussion sessions following each presentation.What this book presents to the reader is not the outcome of the dialogue, but the personal statements and papers from which the dialogue began.Of course there is a degree to which the dialogue is already present, in that the papers of the scholars were written with the statements of the mystics in hand.Among some of the philosophers present, a set of more formal comments on each others presentations was recorded and these have been included.A special word needs to be added about one of the practising mystics whose comments do not appear in this book.Rufus Goodstriker, of the Blood Indians, Cardston, Alberta, spoke on behalf of the North American Indian Tradition.In that tradition, it is held that the sacred teachings and practices must not be written down.They are only to be transmitted by the spoken word of the one who holds them sacred.The editors have respected the wishes of Rufus Goodstriker, and the teachings of his tradition.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.478
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.003

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.181 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReligious Studies and Spiritual PracticesFrench-language works237,207