A reflexive critique of a critical hermeneutics analysis of Wu Zetian
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Revisiting the critical hermeneutics analysis of Wu Zetian’s case in Peng et al.’s (2015) paper, the purpose of this paper is to explore the complexity and paradox of Wu Zetian as a historical figure, and to demonstrate the potential of critical hermeneutics as an innovative methodology to study gender, diversity and history. Moreover, the authors attempt to examine some of the potential challenges and limitations of this methodology and to provide an in-depth account of the socio-politics involved in the research process. Design/methodology/approach This is a reflexive critique based on a framework of four central concepts of critical hermeneutics (Prasad, 2005): questions of author intentionality, layers of texts, hermeneutic circle and relating to texts. Findings Critical hermeneutics has great potential as well as considerable challenges and limitations in the research areas of gender, diversity and history. Originality/value This paper offers a lucid exposition of what critical hermeneutics is about, how it might be applied to a particular case and potential challenges and limitations of this methodology. The study is intensely reflexive and context oriented, illustrating how a deepened understanding of critical hermeneutics leads to a more informed discussion of the possibilities and limitations of the methodology, and how researchers, editors and reviewers can be influenced by the context in which the study is conducted.
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 | 0.075 | 0.127 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.099 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".