THE TOTAL LUNAR ECLIPSE ON JUNE 16, 2011: A KEY TO DATING THE YIN LUNAR ECLIPSE IN <i>YINGCANG</i> 885/886
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Based upon current knowledge of the Yin Oracle-Bone Inscriptions, this article argues that potential inscriptional records of the total lunar eclipse on June 16, 2011, which was observable in Beijing, could only be the same as those of the lunar eclipse recorded in Yingcang 885/886 and that lunar eclipse inscriptions on those two rubbings of Yingcang were records of an eclipse like the one on June 16, 2011. Both eclipses began sometime after midnight and ended shortly after sunrise. Between 1400 b.c.e. and 1148 b.c.e., only the lunar eclipse on August 14, 1166 b.c.e. could match the time and ganzhi dates of the eclipse in Yingcang 885/886. In 1998, Chang Yuzhi and I independently put forward this view. In this article, I reach the same conclusion by means of an innovative method.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".