Indian fable literature; a paper read before the Hamilton Association, Hamilton, Canada, Jan. 9th, 1890.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The discovery made known by Warren Hastings, Halhed, and Wilkins, to the western world, that behind the Vernacular tongues of India, there stands a more ancient language bearing the same rela- tionship to them, that Latin bears to the Romance languages of Europe, was an intellectual revelation of no small value.To the missionaries of an earlier date, is willingly conceded the palm, for the first discovery of this ancient tongue.But the times were not then propitious for a full appreciation, of the rich vein they had stumbled on, and, outside their own missions, this discovery of the Jesuit Fathers might almost as well have continued to be a Brah- manic secret.No stepk towards a knowledge of the language and literature of x\ncient India, was of equal importance to the publication of Hal- heds' " Code of Gentoo laws, or ordinations of the Pundits, from a " Persian translation made from the original written in the Shanscrit 11 language."That collection of native laws was made under the immediate authority of Warren Hastings, by eleven Brahmins who prepared a Persian version for Nathaniel Brassey Halhed, who, in his turn, provided an English translation, and preface, giving all the information he could, concerning the original language in which these laws were written.The English version was published in 1776.Halheds' preface states that "the professors of the ordin- " ances here collected still speak the original language in which they " were composed, though it is now entirely unknown to the bulk of ''the people."It would be interesting to retrace the methods by which the scholars of Europe, aided by Indian pandits, unravelled the complex structure of this old tongue ; to take a bird's eye view of the literature it has preserved; and to follow up the effect of its discov- ery on the science of linguistics.But suffice it to say, knowledge
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.076 | 0.015 |
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".