Gardizi's History: Sanskrit Terms and Expressions of Hinduism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
2 The Zhaocheng canon examined in this paper is based on the Zhonghua da zangjing: hanwen bufen 中華大藏經: 漢文部分, ed.Zhonghua da zangjing bianji ju, 106 vols.(Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1984-1996) [hereafter cited as the Zhonghua canon], which was compiled on the basis of the Zhaocheng canon by taking all of its surviving texts, with only a few exceptions that were mistakenly thought missing.It is worth noting that there was another discovery of Buddhist texts belonging to the Zhaocheng canon in Northern Shajiasi 薩迦寺 in Tibet in 1959.This copy was originally printed in 1256 and placed in Great Baoji monastery 大寶集寺 in Beijing.It has 555 existing fascicles of texts.Except the texts overlapped with those found in Guangshengsi, the rest of this discovery have all been included in the Zhonghua canon.For the close relationship between the Zhonghua canon and the Zhaocheng canon, see Tong Wei 童瑋, Zhaocheng Jin zang yu Zhonghua da zang jing 趙城金藏與中華大藏經 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1989).For the Shajiasi copy, see Su Bai 宿白, "Zhaocheng Jin zang he Hongfa zang" 趙城金藏和弘法藏, Xiandai foxue 現代佛學 2(1964): 13-22.It also deserves to be known that there is the Zhaocheng Jin zang 趙城金藏, which was printed in 122 volumes by Beijing Library Press in 2008.I do not use this new edition because, as Fang Guangchang 方廣錩 has implied, it is an illegal duplication of relevant parts of the Zhonghua canon.Moreover, when compared with it, the Zhonghua canon has detailed notes revealing the textual variants between the Zhaocheng and seven other editions of the Chinese Buddhist canon, and is thus more convenient for use.For the problem in the Beijing Library Press edition, see Fang Guangchang, "Zhonghua da zangjing (shangbian) de bianzhuan yu jiantao" 中华大藏经 (上编) 的 编纂与检讨, a lecture that he delivered at Foguang university in November, 2011 and is available at http://hk.plm.org.cn/e_book/xz-31103.pdf (accessed on December 25, 2012).3 Ironically, the attention that the Zhaocheng canon drew in Japan made it almost looted a few years later when Japanese armies occupied Shanxi.For the eventful history of the Zhaocheng from its rediscovery in the 1930s to its reprinting in the 1980s, particularly its narrow escape from the seizure of Japanese troops, see Hu Shixiang 扈石祥 and Hu Xinghong 扈新紅, "Zhaocheng Jinzang shiji kao" 趙城金藏史跡考, Shijie zongjiao yanjiu 世界宗教研究 2000 (3): 38-48; Li Wanli 李萬 里, "Zhaocheng Jinzang babainian cangsang ji" 趙城金藏八百年滄桑記, Fayin 12 (1988): 32-37.4 Most scholars believe that the Zhaocheng canon duplicated the Kaibao 開寶藏 in content and format in the most precise way, but Tong, Zhaocheng Jinzang yu Zhonghua da zang jing, pp.1-2, contends that although the Zhaocheng is mostly identical to the Kaibao, it includes about forty fascicles taken from the Khitan canon 契丹藏.The importance of this debate lies in the fact that it will decide the pedigree of the Zhaocheng among the three systems, which scholars have recently identified among those printed editions.For these three distinct but related systems, see Chikusa Masaaki 竺沙雅章, Sō Gen Bukkyō bunkashi kenkyū 宋元佛教文化史研究 (Tōkyō:
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".