Bibliographic record
Abstract
The term ‘Joseonhak (Korean Studies, Koreanology) was first proposed by Choi Nam-seon in 1922 and 1927 in an effort to establish it as a field of study. The movement toward ‘Joseonhak arose again as scholars commemorated the 99th anniversary of the death of Jeong Yak-yong (Dasan). Jeong In-bo, Mun Il-pyeong, and An Jae-hong, while raising publics interests in Dasan, advocated ‘Joseonhak with equal enthusiasm. Jeong In-bo, who is usually regarded as the leader of ‘Joseonhak, did not attempt to define it. Mun Il-pyeong, who defined and exhorted it in his own way, did not link it to Silhak (Practical Studies) of the late 19th century Joseon dynasy of Korea. It was An Jae-hong who connected ‘Joseonhak with the publics strong interest in Jeong Yak-yong around 1934. This paper aims to investigate An Jae-hongs theory of the ‘Joseonhak (Korean Studies). An Jae-hong used the term ‘Joseonhak even before 1934, but it was in the last quarter of 1934 when he defined his concept of it. Prior to 1934, the term ‘Joseonhak had not been a weighty concept in An Jae-hongs theory of national movement, but he began to embrace it enthusiastically beginning in 1934. Around 1934, An Jae-hong judged that it was impossible to continue the political struggle against Japanese occupation by forming political organizations such as Singanhoe. As the fascist colonial rule strengthened, he advocated for a Movement for Korean Culture for the purposes of studying the past and present of the Korean people as a means of national survival, and uplifting the modern national consciousness among people. As he reified the Movement for Korean Culture, he contended that proclaiming ‘Joseonhak was a way to succeed in devoting oneself to Korean culture. In this regard, ‘Joseonhak was one area of practice in the Movement for Korean Culture.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.004 |
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".