Cited by 7Indian and Buddhist StudiesJapanese History and CultureStudy and Philosophy of Religion

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Linguistic cubism: A singularity of pluralism in the Sannō cult

Open access
Grapard, Allan G·1987·Japanese Journal of Religious Studies

Abstract

“A text is not a text unless it hides from the first comer, from the first glance, the laws of its composition and the rules of its games•”

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18874/jjrs.14.2-3.1987.211-234

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • As the ultimate metonym, Sannō could be used to challenge old doctrines and propose new ones.

    “As the ultimate metonym, Sannō could be used to challenge old doctrines and propose new ones (Grapard 1987, 211-212).”

    From Editor's Introduction: Esoteric Traditions in Medieval Japan (2020) · cites this paper as Grapard 1987

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Grapard, A. G.
Corresponding author
Grapard, Allan G
Venue
Japanese Journal of Religious Studies
Published
1987-05-01
Volume
14
Issue
2-3
ISSN
0304-1042 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2337761181
Cited by
7
References
0
Citations by year
2017: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
Japanese Journal of Religious Studies (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Indian and Buddhist Studies
  • Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Japanese History and Culture
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Study and Philosophy of Religion
Keywords
Shinto, pluralism, Japanese language, religious language, Shinto deities

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review