MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408427563 · doi:10.1558/bsrv.33092

The Buddha Through Yasodhara’s Eyes

2025· article· en· W4408427563 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBuddhist Studies Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicIndian and Buddhist Studies
Canadian institutionsMarianopolis College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGautama BuddhaPsychologyTraditional medicineHistoryArtPhilosophyMedicineBuddhismTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Buddha-biography does not have a fixed narrative, with one exclusive authoritative rendition, but pulsates with energy, as each community tells the story again in their own way. These many tellings need not always be told from the Buddha’s perspective. Yasodhara, in particular, has received attention from many Buddhist writers. Telling her story may be counted as one of the classical methods for bringing the Buddha’s story to life. In the following article, I reflect on some of my own experiences with writing the Buddha’s story, as I examined his narrative from Yasodhara’s fictionalised point of view. I argue that, while we rely on a number of excellent academic methodologies to do our work, the one method scholars rarely attempt is that of trying to write the story ourselves. My own experiences, however, have shown me how much there is to learn when we become the storyteller.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.468
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.351
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