Bibliographic record
Abstract
Literariness has been embodied in Chinese painting for a long time. Characters are the basic elements of literary works. Chinese characters themselves are a type of ideographic characters developed from pictograph, describe and depict concrete objects, and are exactly the same with the depiction of specific object images in the way of expression and drawing process. Therefore, there are various, countless, inherent and close ties between literary works made up of Chinese characters and Chinese traditional painting. For this reason, the embodiment of literariness in Chinese painting exists naturally. Today, on the social and realistic background of worldwide cultural diversification, Chinese painting is continuously affected by external factors and, thus, is changing quietly in creation pattern, painting style and artistic conception of painting etc.. However, in the process of development and change, only the ongoing and timeless literariness remains the same. Since the ancient times, painters and men of letters have been mutually unified and inseparable; nowadays, Chinese painting and literature foil each other and develop jointly. Later generations inheriting the cultural treasure of ancestors can make the art of Chinese painting unfailing in the continuous development of world culture only by completely inheriting and reserving the characteristic of literariness in Chinese painting.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".