Interpretation and Reflection: The Study of the Object of Sinicization of Marxism in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The object of sinicization of Marxism is the question that should be answered and annotated in the study of Marxism in China. At present, in the domestic academic circles, the study on the object of sinicization of Marxism is still very weak, and the scope of cognitive differences is very large. There are mainly three kinds of views: "Chinese realities" or "the basic principle of Marx" single object theory, "two theories" object theories and "principle- practice- theory" three object theories. These ideas sound reasonable, but there are defects on the understanding of the concept, which is the confusion of the object and the target. The object of sinicization of Marxism should be "of what" questions, rather than "into what" questions, which is the "object" rather than "result". The content should cover the whole Marxism; we should be comprehensive understanding and grasp the object of sinicization of Marxism from the whole system, the universality of the contents, the core content, the essence of Marxism and so on. Of course, there are many shortcomings in the study, and we should reflect and deepen for the object of sinicization of Marxism from connotation, practice path, methodology and research areas, which will certainly promote the development of related research.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".