MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586609752 · doi:10.1017/s0362502800000523

The Qin Slips and Boards From Well No. 1, Liye, Hunan: A Brief Introduction to the Qin Qianling County Archives

2013· article· en· W2586609752 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEarly China · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChinese history and philosophy
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistorySpeculationLegalism (Western philosophy)Ancient historyRank (graph theory)LawPolitical sciencePoliticsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay introduces the newly published Qin documents from levels 5, 6, and 8 of Well no. 1, Liye, Hunan province, the ancient Qianling County of the Qin dynasty, as presented in two 2012 works, Liye Qin jian (yi) 里耶秦簡 (壹) and Liye Qin jiandu jiaoshi (di yi juan) 里耶秦簡牘校釋 (第一卷), ed. Chen Wei 陳偉, together with some of the documents on display in the Liye Qin jian bowuguan (Liye Museum of Qin Slips). It discusses some of the problems in those two publications, the nature of the documents; dating issues; military logistics; the Qin legal system as revealed in the documents, especially those relating to fines and punishments, rewards, rations for convicts, status distinctions and the purchase of rank, forms for writing up documents, and Qin ordinances ( ling 令); and materials relating to the religious activities of local officials in Qianling County. It concludes by offering a speculation on why the documents were thrown into the well as the Qin dynasty began to crumble.

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.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.586
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0020.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.214 · 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