Bibliographic record
Abstract
shamans to communicate with the spiritual world [Felt].It was a time when man believed that the dead influenced the living, and the supernatural world controlled harvests, wars, and illnesses.Shamans offered prayers to the ancestors and God to gain their favor.Some rudimentary medications, in the forms of soup or wine, as well as primitive surgeries with stone needles and knives supplemented what propitiation could not do (6).Recorded Chinese history started around 722 BC during the Zhou dynasty (11th century -256 BC).Medicine started to break away from religion and evolve into an independent field.Official archives from that period recorded medicine as a profession apart from diviners, even dividing it into four kinds: physicians, surgeons, dietitians, and veterinarians (2).This was one of the most dynamic periods in Chinese history .Numerous schools of philosophies, including the most prominent Confucianism, Moism, Daoism, and Legalism, drew on ancient concepts to convey their ideas about nature, human society and political system.Words such as dao, qi, yin yang, and wu xin took on new meanings and formed the basis of philosophical thinking.This trend inevitably affected medicine, as the same terms also found their way into medical theories.Qi, for example, which meant air or breath, came to denote energy vital for human life.Yin and yang, which originally described different exposures to sunlight, became opposite forces whose equilibrium in human body was vital for good health.Wu xin (five elements) became properties assigned to five solid organs (wu zang); liver was associated with wood, heart with fire, spleen with earth, lungs with metal and kidneys with water (12).These terms illustrated the belief that each part in the human body was intricately related to and affected by one another.At the same time, History of Medicine in China When Medicine Took an Alternative Path
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".