Collision of Confucianism, Taoism and Christian Ideas： a Comparative Study of Culture Communication Sense of Pearl S. Buck and Lin Yutang
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pearl S. Buck and Lin Yutang differ in their culture communication sense. Through the comparative study of their subject choice and creation of hero or heroine’s fate, the author points out that Lin Yutang emphasizes on the spread of Chinese culture to westerners, while Pearl S. Buck expresses more western thoughts and Christian ideas. Key words: Pearl S. Buck, Lin Yutang,culture communication sense,Confucianism,Taoism,Christian ideas Resume Pearl Buck et Lin Yutang different dans la conscience de la diffusion culturelle exprime dans leurs oeuvres. Cet article signale , par la comparaison des sujets et de la destinee des personnages dans les oeuvres de ces deux ecrivains, que Lin Yutang met l’accent sur la diffusion du confucianisme et du taoime vers les Occidentaux tandis que Pearl Buck propage davantage les notions occidentals et les idees chretiennes. Mots cles: Pearl Buck, Lin Yutang, la conscience de la diffusion culturelle, le confucianisme et le taoisme, les idees chretiennes 摘 要 賽珍珠和林語堂在作品中表現的文化傳播意識不盡相同，本文通過兩位作家在選題與人物命運安排上的差異，指出林語堂重在向西方人傳播中國的儒道思想，而賽珍珠則更多地宣揚了西方觀念和基督教思想。 關鍵詞：賽珍珠；林語堂；文化傳播意識；儒道思想；基督教思想
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".