MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2229896722 · doi:10.5539/ach.v8n1p126

Literary Representation of the Relationship between Man and Nature in Guo Muoruo’s Poetry Anthology The Goddess

2016· article· en· W2229896722 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chunyan Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Culture and History · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChinese history and philosophy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreatnessLiteraturePoliticsPoetryIdeologyNationalismHarmony (color)Chinese cultureNew Culture MovementChinaBattleMythologySociologyHistoryPhilosophyArtLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p class="1Body">One of the distinct characteristics of Chinese culture has always been its emphasis on the harmony of man with nature (<em>tianren heyi</em>天人合一). This is still widely accepted in Chinese intellectual discourse. However, few scholars have noticed that a new attitude towards the relationship between human beings and nature, which emphasizes the “greatness” of man and the battle against nature, began to germinate in the 1920s. In Chinese culture, the earliest and most impressive manifestation of this attitude was in Chinese literature. The literary revolution foreshadowed the overall intellectual movement of the “New Culture”. Guo Moruo’s (郭沫若1892-1978) poetry<em> </em>anthology <em>The Goddess</em> (<em>Nüshen</em>女神) (1921) was a representative example. It constructed the “greatness” of man and the myth of “man battling against nature” effectively by elevating the status of man in nature. This paper discusses how Guo Muoruo’s ideas related to the social ideologies of the time (e.g. nationalism, Westernization, Romanticism, Expressionism, Marxism and leftist politics). Guo is a case study, demonstrating how social and political change influenced Chinese artistic expression in the 1920s and the 1930s.<strong></strong></p>

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.266
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Culture and HistorySame topicChinese history and philosophyFrench-language works237,207