MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7029323455

To Kill or not to Kill? Helambu valley as a no kill zone: the issue of blood sacrifice and the transformation of ritual patterns in Hyolmo shamanism

2016· article· en· W7029323455 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueIRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTechnology, Environment, Urban Planning
Canadian institutionsInnovation Cluster (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShamanismBuddhismOpposition (politics)SacrificeNarrativeEthnic groupIdentity (music)Spirituality
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Narratives related to a rivality between lamas and shamans are very common throughout the Himalayas and the Hyolmo are no exception to this. The rule seems, generally, the establishment of a unified spiritual field originating from a division of religious labour characterized by hierarchization, opposition and complementarity at the same time. The resulting (asymmetric) religious field is not fixed once and for all: its boundaries are constantly shifting due to practical needs of the people and, to a larger extent, they are also tied to discourses about ethnic identity and "traditional" heritage. With this paper I want to highlight patterns of change affecting hyolmo shamanic rituals, and especially the ongoing debate surrounding the practice of ritual sacrifice. The blood offering, in fact, is seen more and more as a despicable action and many shamans, influenced by Buddhist ideas and/or due to a certain degree of social pressure, are transforming and adapting their rituals in order to cope with this very relevant change at the very core of every transaction with the spirit world.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.012
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome)Same topicTechnology, Environment, Urban PlanningFrench-language works237,207