MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132967140

The Harivaṃśa and Its Kṛṣṇa

2025· dissertation· W7132967140 on OpenAlexaff
Sukshmadarshi Maharaj

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2025
Typedissertation
Language
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicIndian and Buddhist Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSanskritNarrativeScholarshipSanskrit literatureNarrative criticismFocus (optics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dissertation is a literary analysis of the Harivaṃśa that examines the text's portrayal of its protagonist, Kṛṣṇa, in contrast to the portrayal of Kṛṣṇa among other Sanskrit narratives—particularly the Mahābhārata and Bhāgavata Purāṇa. The study explores heterogeneity among conceptions of deity within Sanskrit literature by comparing each text's portrayal of the same figure and contrasting the narrative logic of each work. It puts forward a fourfold model by which Harivaṃśa and its portrayal of Kṛṣṇa can be contextualized. This model situates the text across four axes or dimensions: 1) the historical dimension, 2) the inter-textual dimension, 3) the narrative dimension, and 4) the theological dimension. The Harivaṃśa can thus be indexed as 1) the oldest known Sanskrit narrative to offer an origin story for the figure known as Kṛṣṇa, 2) a commentarial appendix to the Mahābhārata, 3) an actualization narrative of Kṛṣṇa, and 4) a text that asserts a unique theology to the much more popular Bhāgavata Purāṇa. This research contributes to a growing body of scholarship on comparative Sanskrit literature and to the study of the Harivaṃśa, more specifically. Future research may focus on historical elements of this project (early Kṛṣṇa worship), homogeneity among portrayals of Kṛṣṇa in other works, or applying the fourfold model to other works.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.870
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicIndian and Buddhist StudiesFrench-language works237,207