MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1883231486 · doi:10.3968/7589

Traditional Chinese culture in modern Product Design

2015· article· en· W1883231486 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Media and Visual Art
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduct designChinese cultureProduct (mathematics)Context (archaeology)Western cultureAestheticsSociologyEngineering ethicsChinaHistoryPolitical scienceEngineeringArtLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the sources and features of traditional Chinese culture. It also discusses the aesthetic thoughts of Chinese traditional culture. Chinese traditional culture has been illustrated broad and far-reaching impact on design since ancient time. In the context of globalization and the rapid development of science and technology, the difference between traditional design and modern product design should be explored. Chinese traditional culture cannot be totally absorbed. It is important to inherit the traditional culture with critical thinking. There is a need of explanation for the relationship between traditional Chinese culture and modern product design. On this basis, the article will elaborate how traditional Chinese culture can be applied to modern product design and how Chinese traditional culture can be inherited and carried forward in modern product design. Further explore how to integrate Eastern and Western culture, and promote the development of modern product design.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it