Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the late sixteenth century CE, Macau was a fishing village located on China' s south. Ruled by the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644), a fleet of ships had anchored in the village’s docks. China had limited foreign visitors. However, the Portuguese had arrived. The Portuguese wanted to export the European Catholic knowledge and culture to this unfamiliar land. The Portuguese colonial structure was hoping to assimilate the orient to Christianity. The Portuguese Missionary priests arrived. Matteo Ricci (1552–1610), a Jesuit priest, arrived in Macau in 1582 CE to introduce Christianity to Chinese society. At that time, Ming China followed Confucian ideology for their social guidance. Ricci realized that in order to communicate with the Chinese government officials, who held influential positions, he must learn the Chinese language and culture. Ricci gained essential communication skills from reading and translating the Four Books, which were Chinese Classics. Ricci developed friendships with some government officials by sharing his knowledge of science and technology. As his last strategy, Ricci combined European Christianity theology and Cicero’s De Amicitia. He analyzed and synthesized Confucian terminologies to write Discussion of Friendship, his foundational book. Ricci’s book contains the sole purpose of his journey: to create a movement fermented in China’s influential groups leading to the spread of Christianity. Even though Ricci did not build a physical church in China, Ricci successfully introduced Christianity to China, and laid the foundation for the European and American missionary work. He did this through friendship—gaining friends in China, earning their support, and writing Discussion of Friendship.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".