Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pour les apprenants occidentaux, l’accès à l’écriture chinoise se fait d’abord par le biais visuel et notionnel. On apprend à reconnaitre les formes qui composent le caractère, à en identifier les plus courantes et à comprendre leur provenance, refaisant le trajet du réel à l’image puis au signe. Certaines de ces formes servent de repère sémantique, d’autres de repère phonétique, d’autres sont des formes graphiques ajoutées au fil des siècles. Dans tous les cas, l’aspect visuel est premier. 
 L’objectif de ma présentation est de mettre à profit la connaissance de l’histoire et de la structure de l’écriture chinoise pour montrer que son caractère éminemment esthétique rend un apprentissage artistique utile et approprié en classe de langue. J’explorerai le passage du visuel à l’esthétique et au sensible comme voie d’apprentissage du chinois et me demanderai si enseigner la calligraphie chinoise en classe de langue tient de l’enseignement culturel ou linguistique, s’il s’agit de transmettre une pratique profondément ancrée dans les mœurs, ou si cela peut faire partie intégrante de l’apprentissage de la langue écrite. 
 
 Learning Chinese through the Writing Gesture
 For Westerners, the first access to Chinese writing is through a visual and notional approach. We learn to recognize the most common shapes of characters, to understand their genesis from natural objects to images and signs and to grasp their meaning. Some of these forms are used to mark semantic elements; others mark phonetic elements; while other forms have been added over the centuries for graphic purposes. In all cases, these forms offer a visual aspect.
 My presentation analyzes the history and structure of Chinese writing to demonstrate that the aesthetic aspects of the writing system must also be considered in a learning environment to fully grasp the language. I will explore the transition from a visual to an aesthetic and gestural approach of learning to address how Chinese calligraphy teaching in language classes serves not only as an important insight into the cultural aspect of Chinese civilization but as a tool to master the written language.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".