Scientificity and Rationality of Chinese Traditional Classical Fengshui Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chinese traditional Fengshui theory was the fundamental basis, norm, and guiding ideology for site selection, planning, design, and building of residences in the ancient times. Based on the main classical theories of Chinese ancient Fengshui theory and the classical Fengshui model which is suitable for the planning and design of space field, this paper discusses and analyzes the Chinese traditional Fengshui theory from the multidisciplinary perspectives of hydrology, climatology, geology, topography, landscape ecology, environmental psychology, with an aim to demonstrate its scientificity and rationality, thereby, promote correct understanding and reasonable application of it. The conclusion is that Fengshui is based on multi-disciplinary knowledge, especially contains a large number of geological geography knowledge, and reflects the distinct principles of environmental ecology and sustainability. It is a comprehensive and systemic theory of planning and designing environment and architecture from the perspective of the modern scientific theory. The paper also aims to corroborate that Chinese traditional classical Fengshui theory is not only a culture or latent science, but also a comprehensive and interdisciplinary geography and environmental science with rich humanistic connotation. Therefore, it can and should be used extensively in the land-use policy, urban planning, landscape restoration, environmental protection, etc, and should be spread from China to Asian countries with similar cultural heritage, and even to the rest of the world.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".