Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay does not set forth mainly as a study of the references that might exist within the Spinozian corpus to China, Chinese philosophy and the Chinese people in general (there is only one as far as we know, although very important, towards the end of Chapter III of the Theological-Political Treatise), nor does it focus, as its title could suggest, on the reception and circulation of Spinoza´s philosophy in China and among Chinese philosophers. It has rather two different goals. First ? taking the word ?Chinese? metaphorically as something exotic or exoptic, anything that falls out of sight, unknown and unfamiliar ? to perform a brief survey of what is strange in Spinoza´s thought: Chinese, but also Turkish and Japanese ? although leaving aside the extremely strange, like the amazons mentioned on the last page of the Political Treatise, or the enigmatic ?black and scabrous Brazilian? of the dream narrated in a letter to Pieter Balling. Next, to look into the rich and close connection established in the philosophical debates of the 17th and 18th centuries between the syntagmata ?Chinese philosophy? and ?Spinoza´s philosophy? (where intervened authors like Pierre Bayle, Nicolas Malebranche, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Christian Wolff, and later the writers of the Encyclopédie). These debates originated because of the reports and news arising from the Jesuit missions in China, starting with the texts of Mateo Ricci, who arrived to the Asian country in 1583 in order to do his early missionary work, and in particular from the texts of fathers Niccola Longobardo and Antonio de Santa María Caballero, among others.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".