The Western Timepieces in China From the Late Ming to the Middle of the Qing Dynasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Western timepieces were introduced to China in the 16th century and were favored by the Chinese upper class, and then gradually formed “Western Timepieces Consumption Heat” in China. Many Chinese churches, commercial buildings, and public buildings had Western timepieces, and officials, priests, merchants, servants, and actors also wear Western timepieces. As tributes, gifts and commodities, Western timepieces not only opened up new trade and political relations between China and the West, but also served as a material carrier for Chinese and Western art and cultural exchanges. Facing the massive introduction of Western timepieces, the attitude of the Chinese court towards Western timepieces was very different. Some upper class in China was willing to accept the multicultural and advanced ideas behind Western timepieces. Other upper classes, especially literati, had many criticisms of Western timepieces, insisting on the “Chinese Central Theory.” Behind these attitudes reflects the conflict and integration of Chinese and Western cultures and aesthetics, therefore, the introduction of Western timepieces into China has an important value and significance for exploring how Western culture influences the evolution and cultural transformation of early modern Chinese society.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".