Konstruktion einer Seelenverwandtschaft als Beitrag zur Kanonbildung: Eine Betrachtung der Goethe-Auffassungen von deutschen Sinologen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The canonized image of Goethe as cosmopolite-poet counts as one of the most significant visions of the author. The production and reproduction of knowledge around the cosmopolitan Goethe is itself a pattern of cultural narration which deserves thorough investigation. German sinologists as a special group of Goethe interpreters attract my attention as they develop a comparative approach to Goethe and his works, deploying their professional knowledge of Chinese culture and poetics. In this article, I explore Goethe-studies by different generations of prominent German China-experts from Richard Wilhelm and Otto Franke to Wolfgang Bauer and Günther Debon and I argue that they extend the horizon of cognition and interpretation towards an in-between-space of cultures and semiotic systems where Goethe’s cosmopolitanism adopts new nuances and meanings. Their various assertions of Goethe’s “Chineseness” display exactly the speculative and constructive character of their writings and also indicate their own diverse ideological inclinations in shaping their Goethe-images.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".