MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401175435 · doi:10.1163/25425552-20240008

“To What Song Does the Vein of Poetry’s Lute Throb?” The Hypotactic Poetics of Bīdil’s Persian ghazals in Sanskrit-Hindi-Arabic Meters

2024· article· en· W4401175435 on OpenAlexaff
Prashant Keshavmurthy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of South Asian Intellectual History · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicIndian and Buddhist Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSanskritHindiPoetryPersianLiteratureArtHistoryPhilosophyAncient historyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract How, despite the non-specificity of the ghazal’s semantics, can its rhythms contribute to intellectual history? This essay proposes an answer to this question with reference to sixty of the almost three thousand Persian ghazals composed by ʿAbd al-Qādir “Bīdil” (1644–1720) of Delhi. These sixty are distinguished by the fact that their meters are rare or unprecedented in Persian but common in either Arabic or Sanskrit-Hindi or both. Building on the rare aural commonalities between these sixty Persian ghazals and Arabic and Sanskritic poetry in corresponding rhythms, this essay argues that Bīdil used them to multiply and complicate relations between the ghazal’s speakers and its addressees by amplifying hypotaxis; and to subsume the devotional mood of prosodically identical but paratactically simple Hindi hymns to a monist imagination. It concludes by suggesting that his Sanskrit-Hindi-enabled hypotaxis and rhythms in Persian were stylistic imitations of God’s hierarchized self-disclosures.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.011
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of South Asian Intellectual HistorySame topicIndian and Buddhist StudiesFrench-language works237,207