Bibliographic record
Abstract
Very little is known of the similarities shared by the Great Tao as conceived in the immortal Taoist carwn, the Tao-te ching, and the nature of God and the teachings of God's messengers as expounded by Baháʼu'lláh and ʻAbdu'l-Bahá. This article focuses on the Great Tao of the ancient Chinese people, a Tao whose eternal spirit has seeped into the very heart of Chinese tradition, culture, and way of life for centuries, and which is manifest in various aspects of Chinese thought and life as well as in the more apparent aesthetics of calligraphy, painting, and poetry. This article compares the similarities of the spiritual insights of the Tao-te ching with that of other major religions, rwtably the Baháʼí Faith, and argues that rw understanding of the Chinese mind and spirit can be complete without a perusal of some of the main spiritual tenets of this imperishable crown. It must be rooted that this article is concerned with the original philosophy of Tao and not with what is today popularly known as the "Taoist religion," an invention only loosely connected with the spiritual insights of the Tao-te ching.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.008 |
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".