MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995448092 · doi:10.1017/eac.2014.10

THE TOTAL LUNAR ECLIPSE ON JUNE 16, 2011: A KEY TO DATING THE YIN LUNAR ECLIPSE IN <i>YINGCANG</i> 885/886

2014· article· en· W1995448092 on OpenAlex
Xueshun Liu

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEarly China · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicHistorical Astronomy and Related Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEclipseHistoryKey (lock)Solar eclipseGeologyAncient historyAstronomyComputer sciencePhysicsOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.433
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.196 · 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