Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since ancient times, wedding custom, as a national symbol and cultural development, plays a very important role in the ethnic studies. More importantly, it is that people can understand the history of human society better through numerous and brilliant wedding customs and explore the basic law of development of human society. During the development of human history, many wedding customs have experienced various changes, as the basic pattern, “six etiquettes” in China has not changed much and is still essential and core in wedding custom. In western countries, a valid marriage should experience proposal, surnames, choosing the day and holding the wedding. This paper will explore some different aspects of two wedding customs. Because of their different cultural origin, religion, concept and geography, there are many differences existing between China and Western countries: different procedures, different dresses, different activities, different colors and different wedding day ceremonies. Because of the cultural exchange, China and Western countries become more frequent. This paper will also discuss some similarities and absorption of wedding culture between China and Western countries. Through the comparison of these processes and some related stories, we can easily find the distinctions. Generally speaking, western weddings are more flexible. The processes of a wedding are not so complicated as a Chinese wedding. They give us the impression of romanticism, freedom and equity. According to the traditional Chinese style, it seems to be more cockamamie and striped-pants but own deeper cultural connotations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".