‘Mettaic-Ethnicity’: World Buddhism under One Umbrella in Canada - a Comparative Research Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a paper presented at the Eighth Biennial Conference of the Canadian Ethnic Studies Association, Montreal, Canada, October 17, 1985, based in a series of oral interviews conducted by the writer in the role of researcher for the Multicultural History Society of Ontario. Re-discovered recently among his archival material, it has been edited (2023) while the data remains untouched. So while the references may be dated (and the dates may need verification), the case made I believe still stands. The main contribution of the paper is that the Buddhist groups of varied ethnocultural backgrounds in Canada serve to provide a counter example to the scholarly theories how conflict is inherent in ethnic relations. For all the geoethnocultural changes made over time to the Buddhadhamma, the communities relate to each other in a ‘mettaic’, i.e., friendly, manner, respectful of each other, liberation being in the hands of the individual. It is a similar attitude that the Buddhists have in relation to other religions. A novel theoretical contributions of the paper is that a religious community is treated as an ‘ ethnic’ community as in the sociological literature. The paper also provides the unintended benefit of historicity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".