A Comparative Study On Rockery in Eastern and Western Gardens
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The thesis has described the differences of the national psychology in treating mountains and stones and the historical backgrounds of the formation of garden rockery between Eastern and Western gardens. The conclusion is: the rockery in Chinese classical gardens is fully symbolic and highly technological; while the rockery in Western gardens appeared under the influence of the Eastern style, is mostly regarded as a kind of artificial decoration, to express the new discovery of the natural beauty. Key words: Eastern and Western gardens, rockery,comparison Resume Cet article evoque les differentes psychologies nationales de l’Orient et l’Occident vis-a-vis de la montagne et la roche ainsi que les contextes historiques respectifs de l’apparition du paysage de rocaille des jardins et parcs. L’auteur en tire la conclusion : la rocaille des jardins et parcs chinois represente une signification symboliste et une technique d’art remarquable , alors que celle de l’Occident, en tant que decoration artificielle apparue apres l’introduction du style orient, manifeste la decouverte de la beaute naturelle des occidentaux. Mots-cles: des jardins et parcs orientaux et occidentaux, la rocaille, la comparaison 摘 要 本文追溯了中西方對待山石的不同的民族心理，以及園林山景產生的不同的歷史背景，得出的結論是：中國園林中的假山疊石，具有較深的象徵意味和高超的藝術技巧；而西方園林中的岩石假山作為引入東方風格以後出現的人工的裝飾品，表達了西方人對自然美的發現。 關鍵詞: 中西園林；假山；比較
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it