MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396557132 · doi:10.21071/mijtk.v9i.16292

Los inicios del Ismailismo Nizarí: Traducción comentada de la obra Reconocimiento a Dios del Ḫwāǧah Qāsim Tuštarī

2024· article· es· W4396557132 on OpenAlexaff
Shafique N. Virani, Virginia Martos Armenteros

Bibliographic record

VenueMediterranea International Journal on the Transfer of Knowledge · 2024
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies of Medieval Iberia
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La obra de Ḫwāǧah Qāsim Tuštarī Reconocimiento a Dios (Maʿrifat-i Ḫudāy taʿālā), recientemente descubierta, es uno de los únicos textos que se conservan del primer periodo alamūtí de la historia musulmana ismailí. Esta obra conserva pruebas de la « nueva convocatoria » (daʿwat-i ǧadīd) a la fe ismailí que, según al-Šahrastānī (fallecido en 548/1153), fue inaugurada por el Imām fatimí al-Mustanṣir billāh (fallecido en 487/1094) y defendida por Ḥasan-i Ṣabbāḥ (fallecido en 518/1124). El texto subraya que el fin último de la existencia humana es conocer a Dios, y que el camino hacia este conocimiento pasa por el Imām del Tiempo. El texto, compuesto probablemente entre 525/1131 y 533/1139, contiene referencias casi contemporáneas a Sanāʾī Ġaznawī (fallecido hacia 525/1131) y apunta al desarrollo muy temprano de la poesía homilética, devocional y piadosa persa, así como del « metro maṯnawī » en el entorno ismailí. Más tarde, Farīd al-Dīn ʿAṭṭār (fallecido hacia 618/1221) y Ǧalāl al-Dīn Rūmī (fallecido en 672/1273) utilizaron célebremente este metro en sus composiciones místicas. El artículo incluye una introducción y una traducción comentada de Reconocimiento a Dios, de Qāsim Tuštarī.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.012
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMediterranea International Journal on the Transfer of KnowledgeSame topicHistorical Studies of Medieval IberiaFrench-language works237,207