Find Modern Turning From the Rising Trend of Giving Consideration to the Han and Song Compromise School of the Academic History in the Qing Dynasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As one of the important schools, the Han and Song compromise school was rising in the mid and late Qing Dynasty and it had lasted for hundreds of years. The reasons of the rise were very complex, but the remarks of Weng Fanggang (翁方綱) , Zhang Xuecheng (章學誠) and Xu Zongyan (許宗彥) of the Qianlong period undoubtedly enlightened the development of the school. Weng Fanggang considered that establishing a union of the Han school and the Song school was better for the both. Zhang Xuecheng thought that separating the Han school and the Song school would hurt the two. Xu Zongyan believed that the academic level of the Han school was lower and it should unite with the Song school to reach the way of sage (聖學). Although there were some differences in their opinions, they all wanted to correct the bias of the Han school and overcome shortcomings of the Song school. Their thoughts showed the changes of academic views from tradition to modernity in the Qing Dynasty. For us, studying this topic still has realistic significance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".