Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report examines different experiences of ancestor worship held by members of a younger and older generation living in Shanghai. The information used in this report has been gathered from Shanghainese and non-Shanghainese people interviewed in Shanghai. The participants were chosen based on what political era in China they grew up in. The goal of this research was to determine whether or not different generations of Chinese people held different beliefs towards ancestor worship or practiced ancestor worship differently in modern day Shanghai, and the extent of these possible differences. Over eighteen interviews, differences and disparities within ancestor worship practices became evident. Most notable were the distinct reasons as to why each generation viewed ancestor worship as valuable; while older people recognized the benefits of ancestor worship in promoting filial piety, the younger generation saw the practice as an expression of traditional Chinese culture. Results also showed that older participants mentioned a wider variety of types of offerings in comparison to those mentioned by the younger participants. There are many individual and generational disparities in the offerings and attitudes towards ancestor worship. What remains constant between generations is the participation in worship activities during significant Chinese festivals, the recognition of value of ancestor worship, the desire to teach ancestor worship to the next generation, the proportion of each generation that view ancestor worship as a superstition, the proportion that does not view ancestor worship as superstition, and the desire to make practices of ancestor worship less harmful to the environment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".