Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the various scholarly and institutional mediations by which Chinese literature has been studied in the West, starting with the governing assumptions of nineteenth-century European philology and moving to the defense-strategical motivations behind the development of area studies programs after World War II, to the burgeoning of East-West comparative literature, and finally to the often concealed, but usually overtly universalizing presumptions of contemporary Western theory. While I do not wish to argue for a parochial cultural essentialism or exceptionalism that would insulate Chinese literary traditions from the analytical tools of Western academic practice, I do feel that concepts with claims to be "global" have not really been seriously tested by works embedded in very different histories and contexts, and questions about the function and nature of humanistic discourse have been assumed to be transportable rather than subject to confrontation and transformation from those works. Finally, I point out how the asymmetry in this relationship between Western theory and other traditions has been institutionalized in the typical departmental structure of the American university, a situation that is only now being subject to challenge.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".