On the Evolving Types, Characteristics and Research Value of Ancient Scientific and Technological Files in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On the analysis of the history and types of ancient scientific and technological files, the author summarized its characteristics by comparison with modern scientific and technological files. Then he discussed its research values to ancient civilization, ancient scientific and technological history, policy and status of China. Keywords: Ancient,scientific and technological files,science and technology,scientific and technological documents,type,characteristics Resume Sur l’analyse de l’histoire et des types d’anciens archives scientifiques et technologiques, l’auteur a fait un resume ses caracteristiques par une comparaison avec les archives modernes scientifiques et technologiques. Ensuite, il a fait une discussion sur sa valeur de recherche sur l’ancienne civilisaiton, l’ancienne histoire scientifique et technologique, la politique et les statuts de la Chine. Mots-cles: ancien, les archives scientifiques et technologiques, science et technologie, les documents scientifiques et technologiques, type, caracteristiques 摘 要 本文基於古代科技檔案演進的歷史脈絡與形成類型，通過與現代科技檔案的比較研究，總結歸納出古代科技檔案的若干特點，進而分析古代科技檔案對於中國古代文明、中國古代科學技術史和古代科技政策及地位的研究價值。 關鍵詞：古代；科技檔案；科學技術；科技文獻；類型；特點
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.035 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".