«Incense Seals» in Chinese Culture: Origins, Ritual and Practical Functions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article focuses on the origin of traditional Chinese culture seal-censers (香印xiangyin, 香篆xiangzhuan), including an analysis of key functions during their evolutionary course over several centuries. The specificity of early incense seals is revealed through the study of religious, documentary and artistic sources of the Tang (618–907) and Song (960–1279) epochs, Chinese catalogs and reference books dating back to the last years of the Qing dynasty (last quarter of the 19thcentury) and 7th– 8thcenturies Buddhist texts. Key features of the symbolism and functions of aromatic seals in rituals, engineering and scientific fields, as well as in artistic and household fields are also analyzed. Currently, the practice of burning incense seals in China and Taiwan is generally limited to artistic and commercial fields. At the same time, the lengthy religious, artistic and everyday tradition of the East contains great opportunities for using incense seals. Such as, naturally combining them with other types of leisure, including being considered an effective way to maintain physical and mental health.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".