Introduction to Special Issue: China and the West in Dialogue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The origins of the articles in this issue of Literature and Theology lie in a series of international seminars held in Renmin University of China in Beijing between 2012 and 2014. These were gatherings of scholars and students from China, Hong Kong, the USA, Canada, and Scotland whose concern was to further intellectual understanding between the cultures of East and West through reflections on issues in the study of literature and religion, translation, and hermeneutics. In addition to the contemporary critical context in hermeneutical thinking and the adoption in China of what has become known as ‘scriptural reasoning’ (a term first found in the early 1990s amongst a group of Jewish scholars engaged in comparative readings of the Christian Bible and the Jewish Tanakh), these articles here refer back to the 19th century and in particular to the work of James Legge, the first Professor of Chinese Literature and Language in the University of Oxford and for 30 years a missionary/scholar in China who produced numerous translations of the Chinese Classics and made them known to English readers. Legge’s rendering of biblical stories in the form of Chinese novels and his appreciation of Confucianism and Daoism are important, and too often forgotten, moments in the eventual development of the studies of comparative religion and comparative literature—the articles in this issue will offer some reflections on these questions. Balance is always hard to maintain in such intercultural negotiations, and it is for that reason that this issue of the journal has two editors, one Chinese and one British.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.063 | 0.009 |
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".