Bibliographic record
Abstract
Known as sho [書], shodō [書道], shosha [書写] or shūji [習字] in the twenty-first century, calligraphy holds an ambiguous and complicated status as art in modern Japan. Practiced by high society members and Buddhist monks in earlier periods, calligraphy gained public popularity during the Edo period (1603–1868). However, calligraphy’s status became contentious during the Meiji period (1868–1912), with the introduction of European concepts of art and the emphasis on calligraphy’s practical skill in the newly structured education system. New expressions in calligraphy emerged, not only because of European influences, but also due to the discovery of Chinese calligraphy classics from the Six Dynasties period (third to sixth centuries). During the Taisho period (1912–1926), calligraphers participated in international and public exhibitions, which led to the establishment of an independent role for professional calligraphers in the Shōwa period (1926–1989). The passing of a style from master to disciple became common among calligraphers. While calligraphy remains a social practice as much as an artistic one, geijutsu-sho, or artistic calligraphy, was established in the early 20th century.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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.
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".