Chinese Residents’ Philosophy and Religion in Contemporary China and North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cultural dimension of sustainability as the fourth pillar of the overall sustainable development framework encompasses both tangible and intangible cultures. In this study, tangible culture refers to the home environments of Chinese residents in China and North America, while intangible culture refers to their faiths and belief systems, in other words, their philosophy and religion, reflected (or not) in their home environments. The paper argues that Chinese philosophy and religion have historically contributed to Chinese people’s environmental ethics and their health and happiness. Set within this context, the paper presents the author’s two empirical research findings on Chinese residents’ philosophy and religion in contemporary China and North America. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected by asking Chinese residents the same research question in the 2007-2008 onsite survey and follow-up interviews in Beijing and Suzhou of China, and the 2013 online survey and follow-up interviews in the US and Canada. The findings show a significantly higher percentage of ethnic Chinese in North America holds traditional Chinese faiths than those in China, though Western cultural infiltration is also happening to them. Nevertheless, due to the limited number of participants, the findings may only be indicative.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".