Look Into the Logicality of Changes of Chinese Ink From Evolution of the Function of Chinese Painting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Upon the birth of painting, it was not a kind of independent art. Along with the historical development, the painting evolves from dependency to self-consciousness and independency, and such independent sources on the evolution of the function of painting, namely, developing from the cognitive function and supplementary function to the function of spiritual manifestation. If viewed from the angle of function, the function of painting has gone through the following process: Record appearance-vivid expression-artistic conception-freehand brushwork. As a whole, it is a transitional process from the depiction of object to expression of subject’s feelings and disposition. While for the development of ink and stroke, it also has gone through a process: apply the stroke (ink) according to the actual state of the object, and gradually develop to apply the stroke (ink) in accordance with the need of feelings of the creator, i.e. narrate objects-imitate image-describe inner world of men-freehand brushwork. The changes of Chinese ink involve many elements, one of which is in analyze changes of Chinese ink from evolution of the function of Chinese painting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".