MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Husband and Wife Relation in “Odour of Chrysanthemums”

2009· article· en· W2125872975 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zhen Yan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWifeConscienceEthnologyHumanitiesRelation (database)Isolation (microbiology)SociologyPhilosophyPsychoanalysisPsychologyTheologyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay focuses on the husband and wife relations; the wife is in dominance in the relation. The story is a rediscovery of the wife in her marriage, her husband, and herself. When man cannot balance his natural and social consciousness, the gap and utter isolation appear. The essay finds evidence from the description of the wife, the children, the husband, and of their talks. It’s proved that both the wife and husband are the victims of this isolation. Key words: relation, isolation, social consciousness, natural consciousness, gap Resume: Le present article se concentre sur la relation conjugale, dans laquelle la femme est dominante. L’histoire est une redecouverte de la femme dans son mariage, son mari et elle-meme. Quand l’homme ne peut pas balancer ses conscience naturelle et conscience sociale, le fosse et l’isolation absolue apparaissent. L’article trouve la preuve dans la description de la femme, des enfants, du mari et de leurs conversations. Il est prouve que la femme et le mari sont tous les deux victimes de cette isolation. Mots-Cles: relation, isolation, conscience sociale, conscience naturelle, fosse

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.008
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social science→Same topicBiblical Studies and Interpretation→French-language works237,207→