The Impact of Biblical Literature on the Production of Chinese and Foreign Literatures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through an investigation into what Biblical Literature is and its great impact on the production of Chinese and foreign literatures, this paper demonstrates to us that the value orientation, emotions and aesthetics of Biblical Literature have been influencing the language, styles and aesthetics of Chinese and foreign literatures. Key words: the Bible, Chinese and foreign literatures, impact, production Resume: Dans cet article, en faisant des recherches sur ce que c'est que la litterature biblique et en etudiant son influence profonde sur la creation litteraire chinoise et etrangere, l'auteur nous fait reconnaitre que la litterature biblique exerce une influence sur le langage, le style artistique et la connotation esthetique de la litterature chinoise et etrangere par leur concept de valeur, leur mode d'emotion et leur gout esthetique. Mots-cles: Bible, litterature chinoise et etrangere, influence, creation 摘要：本文通過探討什麼是《聖經》文學以及它對中外文學創作的深遠影響，使我們認識到《聖經》文學通過他們的 價值取向、情感方式和審美情趣，影響著中外文學的文學語言，藝術風格和美學內涵。 關鍵詞：聖經；中外文學；影響；創作
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
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".