Diverse Biologies and Experiential Continuities: Did the Ancient Chinese Know That <i>Qinghao</i> Had Anti-Malarial Properties?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article treats Chinese medical theories and concepts as cultural constructs that arose as much from practice-oriented concerns as from socio-political negotiations within the medical field. It further explores the interface of the biological and cultural. It is often futile to investigate how Chinese medical descriptions relate to biological processes, because the local biologies that the Chinese physicians recognized in the past and continue to describe in the present, are contested by mainstream medicine, but recent bioscientific research on the anti-malarial properties of the Chinese medical drug qinghao opens up new avenues for the historian. To be sure, no attempt is made to equate ancient nosologies to modern ones, nor to justify the cultural through the biological. In order to avoid pitfalls of simple equations, this article takes the experiential not merely as a subjective but as an inter-subjective reality that mediates the biological and cultural. The findings are striking: once one reads the Chinese medical texts as reporting on the experiential, one of their many possible readings is that they provide concrete descriptions of morbid conditions that also the contemporary mainstream physician recognizes.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".