An analysis of Confucianism’s <i>yin-yang</i> harmony with nature and the traditional oppression of women: Implications for social work practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• : This article introduces basic tenents of Confucianism and its evolution, and explores its unique contribution to socio-cultural practices on gender-based oppression in social work practice. • : The yin-yang (陰-陽) relation is originally a cosmic idea that is cyclical and harmonizing, but not oppositional and contradictory. The yin-yang binary is not intended to indicate any human relations (gender) or political ethics but the harmony of human nature. Despite the complementary nature of the yin-yang union, a confucianized Chinese society consigned yang to male and yin to female, signifying hierarchal gender relations. Women were considered inferior to men in the patriarchal family system. Misinterpretation of Confucianism promoted hierarchal relationships between men and women and, as a result, dramatically affected the gender-based attitudes and behavior. • : Confucianism, one of the most crucial philosophies of Asian cultural norms, has long been studied from the perspectives of intellectual history and philosophical truth seeking; however, only a few scholarly texts are available in the area of Confucianism and its influence on gender inequality. In particular, this article attempts to help scholars and helping-professionals understand how the harmonious yin-yang concept evolved into the contradictory binary, which further perpetrated gender hierarchy and oppression toward women. Limitations of current Confucianism research and implications for social work practice are presented.
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 | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".