Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many people wonder about the differences between Chinese people and the Westerners especially in their thinking patterns. As a matter of fact, the influence of Confucianism and Christianity has played a very important role in cultivating the people’s ideas. Although Christian doctrines share a lot of common cores with Confucian theories, a great many differences still exist particularly in beliefs, human nature and life. This paper is aimed to make a comparison between the two systems. Key Words: Confucianism, Christianity, Jesus, Confucius, religion, cultural differences Resume: Beaucoup de gens s’interessent aux differences du peuple chinois avec les Occidentaux, surtout en ce qui concerne leur modele de penser. En effet, l’influence du confucianisme et du christianisme a joue un role tres important dans la formation des idees du peuple. Malgre de nombreux noyaux communs entre eux, il existe quand meme beaucoup de differences, notamment sur la foi, la nature humaine et la vie. L’article present tente de faire une comparaison de ces deux systemes. Mots-Cles: confucianisme, christianisme, Jesus, Confucius, religion, differences culturelles
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".