Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to explore if there is an analogous discipline in China to diplomatics. Design/methodology/approach – A comparison method is used for the exploration. Five Chinese disciplines are chosen for the comparison, which are Wenxian xue, Bianwei xue, Dangan jianbian xue, Wenshu xue and Gu wenshu xue. The diplomatics, as discussed in this paper, is modern diplomatics, as exemplified in the work of Dr Luciana Duranti. Findings – It was found that while there is no such Chinese discipline identical to diplomatics, its knowledge is distributed among several Chinese disciplines. This indicates the common concern and efforts in the West and East and the potential for the further development of diplomatics as a global discipline. Research limitations/implications – The disciplines this paper has examined are what this author is aware of that share certain similarities with diplomatics and the discussion is based on this author’s understanding; thus, it is possible that there are disciplines that this author did not know or the understanding is insufficient to reveal all the connections between diplomatics and these disciplines. Further research from other perspectives might be needed. Originality/value – To the author’s best knowledge, this is the first paper in English comparing Chinese diplomatic disciplines with diplomatics. It has also shed some light on the development of several Chinese disciplines.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".