MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417412689 · doi:10.31581/jbs-35.4.566(2025)

New Perspective on Human Evolution

2025· article· W4417412689 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Bahá’í Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEvolution and Science Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipCladogramPerspective (graphical)Interpretation (philosophy)Statement (logic)Taxonomy (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reviews past Bahá’í scholarship on evolution, identifies a gap in this scholarship in light of current evolutionary biology, and uses cladistics—a modern approach to biological classification—to reconsider certain perceived tensions between current concepts in evolutionary biology and certain statements of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. A summary of taxonomy and phylogenetic tree construction is given, with special emphasis placed on cladistics, a methodology not available in ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s day, and heretofore not mentioned in Bahá’í-authored publications related to evolution. This paper concludes with examples of how cladograms may aid in conceptualizing some of the evolution-related statements of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, (for example, His statement that “man is not an animal”). In using this approach, the intention of the author is not to re-interpret ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s statements, nor to “prove” any particular interpretation thereof, but rather to bring modern concepts of evolutionary biology into Bahá’í discourse on evolution.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.289 · 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