MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999359578 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v10n2p62

The “虚指Xuzhi ” of Number in Ancient China: Evidence from the Yijing

2020· article· en· W2999359578 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yancheng Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Linguistics and Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHumanities and Social Science Fund of Ministry of Education of ChinaChina Scholarship CouncilMinistry of Education of the People's Republic of China
KeywordsNumeral systemMeaning (existential)ConceptualizationChinaDivinationMathematicsLinguisticsPhilosophyEpistemologyArithmeticHistoryLiteratureArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Number, especially the number system has been an important part of the Yijing text, which can help us probe into the myth of the Yijing. The Yijing languages treat numerical notion from ‘one’ to ‘ten’ very special, especially about the “虚指Xuzhi” (empty reference or implicit meaning) usage of ‘three’, ‘seven’, ‘nine’ and ‘ten’, etc. The numeral expressions and linguistic representations in the Yijing text indicate that the decimal system of numbers has been very popular at that time. From the analysis of the Yijing text, it can be seen that linguistic and cultural conceptualization of number exists and the usage of numbers at that time has reached “亿 yi 100 million”, which also indicates the strong numeral notions or ideas of the ancestors in ancient China. This paper mainly illustrates the “虚指Xuzhi” (empty reference or implicit meaning) of the original number in the Yijing by linguistic and cultural conceptualization of number, dealing with historical aspects of number usage.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicHistorical Linguistics and Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207