Anthologizing classical Chinese poetry in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries: poetics and ideology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We seek in this study to consider anthologizing as a decision-making activity, marshalling evidence from texts and paratexts reflecting anthologists’ poetic and ideological criteria for selection; to analyze the construction of a national literature accomplished through text selection and omission; and to provide evidence of the systematicity and intertextuality of anthologized texts as interrelated ecologies. We will focus largely on translation history decisions and procedures such as selection and the anthologists’ rationale; presentation format (monolingual, bilingual, the use of Chinese); provenance (direct or indirect translation); and target audience. In exploring criteria for selection, we intend to shed light on the complex problem of representativeness. We posit that anthologizing and its canon-forming and canon-redefining choices appear dialogically, in conversation with various kinds of previous texts, which serve as a kind of “original” to the anthologist’s “translation.” Our corpus includes multi-author anthologies of classic Chinese poetry that were published from the 1890s to the present.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".