Bibliographic record
Abstract
The differences and identities of the arts of classical gardens between China and the West are compared in this paper. Due to the differences in natural conditions, historical origins, social environments, cultural backgrounds and religious factors, the gardens in China and the West developed in a diametrically opposite way from the very beginning. The former has been seeking natural beauty, and the later was in pursuit of artificial beauty. Even so, there are many identities, such as the identity of mankind, social identity and material identity, of the gardens between China and the West, which are confirmed by the authors according to the historical facts of exchange between the two. And now, facing the common problems of environment, they both are headed in the same direction towards the natural and ecological gardens, but by different routes. Key words: Chinese and Western garden arts, differences and similarities, general trend of garden making Resume: Vous trouverez par ce present les differences et les identites des arts des jardins chinois et europeens.En raison des differences dans les conditions naturelles , des origines historiques, des environnements sociaux, des contextes culturels et des facteurs religieux, les arts des jardins chinois et europeens ont connu du developpement de manieres absolument differente des le tout debut. Le precedent cherche a la beaute naturelle et le dernier poursuit une beaute artificielle. Cependant, ils possedent beaucoup comme identites des arts des jardins chinois et europeens telles ques celle de l’etre humain, sociale et materielle qui ont ete confirmees par les auteurs en fonction des echanges de facteurs historiques entre les deux. Pour le present, face aux probllemes communs environnementaux, ils s’orientent tous les deux dans la meme direction des jardins naturels et ecoloqiques, mais par de differents trajets. Mots cles: Arts des jardins chinois et europeens, differences et similaites, tendance generale de jadinage
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".