MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

幽赞而达乎数,明数而达乎德——由《要》与《诸子略》对读论儒之超越巫史

2019· article· zh· W36921028 on OpenAlexfundno aff
李若晖

Bibliographic record

Venue文史哲 · 2019
Typearticle
Languagezh
FieldEngineering
TopicMilitary Technology and Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

先秦诸子常思依附于权力,以至于为得君行道,主动扼杀精神之独立及思想之自由,为权力一统思想,多所谋划。董仲舒“罢黜百家,独尊儒术”,司马谈“同归而殊涂”,向歆父子“诸子出于王官”,使得诸予被重新纳入一统天下的官学架构之中,子学中超出相应官守职掌的天下之学遭到裁抑。与“同归殊涂”的沉沦之路相反,马王堆帛书《要》篇清晰地勾勒了另一“同涂殊归”的超越之路。巫、史、儒都以《周易》占筮,然而其方法与追求迥异。不拘执于具体事件而超越于巫,进入《周易》,通过卦爻的类型化理解,驾驭万事万物,是为史官一道家。不陷溺于繁琐的分类,而追求德义,便能超越于史,而成为儒。毋庸置疑,《要》篇虽然终归亡佚,其思想却死而不亡。

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.020
Scholarly communication0.0120.015
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.183 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue文史哲Same topicMilitary Technology and StrategiesFrench-language works237,207