On the Significance of the Poetry of Talking About Celestial Beings in Wei, Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties for Researching Daoist (Taoist) History
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There were poems of talking about celestial beings in Wei, Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties (220-589 A. D.). These poems formed an important part of the poetic culture in that time. This kind of poetry originated before Han dynasty, such as Qu Yuan’s Li Sao, Travel and other works which described the life and environment of celestial beings. In Wei, Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties, the poetry had the well development and was rich in content, which contained a lot of historical material about Daoism. However, in the past academic research, scholars have not fully used the poetry of Wei, Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties to research Daoism. As historical material of Wei, Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties, these poems show the “worship trend for Daoism”, “Daoist rituals”, “Daoist meditation” and “Daoist metaphors”, and provide material for relevant special research. However, at the same time, due to the special art form of the poetry, these poems may be obscure, difficult to understand, exaggerated and falsely describing things. All of these disadvantages led scholars restrict the use of these poems in the historical study of Daoism.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".