Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.482 | 0.280 |
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".