MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295547015 · doi:10.1177/20516770221109851

Taiping Ideology and the Rewriting of the Chinese Bible

2022· article· en· W4295547015 on OpenAlex
Clement Tsz Ming Tong

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Bible Translator · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChinese history and philosophy
Canadian institutionsTrinity Western UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeologyEmbarrassmentChinaOrder (exchange)HistoryKingdomRewritingChristianityAncient historyCapital (architecture)LiteratureReligious studiesLawPhilosophyPolitical scienceArtArchaeologyPoliticsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When the Taiping insurgents overran the ancient Chinese capital of Nanjing in 1853, the barely two-year-old Christianity-inspired armed uprising appeared to be unstoppable, controlling a large area of Southern China south of the Yangtze River. One of the urgent tasks for the leader of this new “Heavenly Kingdom of Peace” ( Taiping Tianguo), the self-proclaimed second son of God, Hong Xiu Quan, was to match his Taiping ideology with the teachings of the Bible—an important source of his inspiration and authority. Two official translations of the Bible were subsequently published by the Taipings, in which much alteration was done in order to promote Hong's brand of theology and beliefs and to remove stories of potential embarrassment for the regime. This article examines some of the major cases of rewriting found in the two Taiping editions, and provides possible reasons for the heavy-handed tampering with the biblical texts.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.254 · 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