Discussion on Scientificaion of Acupuncture in Hong Kong in 1950s: with special reference to Zhu Lian’s The New Acupuncture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Influential in shaping the practice of Chinese medicine, acupuncture is an ancient form of healing based on theories of traditional medicine. The clashes between western science and traditional knowledge have ushered Chinese medicine into a new era, so has acupuncture. The major challenges facing researchers are whether it is feasible to scientificize acupuncture and how to do so if feasible. Causing unprecedented responses at home and abroad, the publication of The New Acupuncture (Xin zhenjiu xue????) by Zhu Lian (1909-1987) in 1951 dramatized the already heated discussion. This medical treatise was considered as the pioneer in scientification of acupuncture in mainland China since 1949. The purpose of this paper is to (1) put Zhu Lian’s The New Acupuncture and its relevant discussions back into the historical context of Chinese medicine in mainland China and Hong Kong in the 1950s, and (2) analyze the arguments set forth by her and other practitioners so as to get a clearer picture of how the issue on scientificizing acupuncture was being dealt with.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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".