Narrative identity of the possible author: a tertiary narrativization of Chinese realist art of the 1950s–1990s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract From a narratological perspective, this essay reinterprets the development of Chinese realist art under Western influence in the second half of the twentieth century and explores the narrative issue of the possible author that is transformed from the integral reader. As a crucial response to Western influence, realist art in China developed from imitating to appropriating Western art and continued from taking inspiration from Western art to participating in the international arena of conceptual art with certain renovations. In this essay, the narratological notion of “possible author” is proposed to discuss the issue of narrative identity. While some scholars declared the death of the reader, this essay introduces a new reader to art historical narrative. This is a tertiary reader that transforms into a possible author who re-narrates the story of art history in the possible space between the secondary narration and tertiary narrativization. In this space, the three layers of the first-hand fabula, secondary narration, and tertiary narrativization work together in defining the possible author’s narrative identity as re-interpretive and critical.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".