Bibliographic record
Abstract
Schlemil is a classical theme in world literature. By employing Ah Q and Gimpel as examples, this paper seeks to examine the differences and similarities between them, which is influenced by different cultures and religious background. Through the analysis, this paper points out that Gimpel shows a spirit of humanitarianism, owing to his belief in God. Key words: Schlemil, belief, Gimpel Resume: L’image des gens “stupides”est un sujet classique de la creation litteraire de tous les pays . Tout en essayant de decouvrir la similitude et la difference des personnages sur le meme theme , Ce texte cite l’exemple de Ah Q et Gimpel , pour enfin degager l’influence de la culture et de la religion sur les personnages litteraires . Ce texte montre egalement le rayonnement de la bienveillance humaine grâce a la croyance du Dieu . A travers la recherche de ces deux oeuvres sous de differents systemes desvaleurs , ce texte approfondit la comprehension sur la culture occidentale et orientale Mots cles: les gens stupides, la croyance, Gimpel
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".