MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378966534 · doi:10.1080/02549948.2023.2198409

Between End and Means

2023· article· en· W4378966534 on OpenAlexaff
Luke S.K. Kwong 鄺兆江

Bibliographic record

VenueMonumenta Serica · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChinese history and philosophy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaInterregnumSoulProtestantismContext (archaeology)ChapelHistoryAestheticsSociologyLiteraturePolitical sciencePhilosophyEpistemologyArtLawArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Timothy Richard spent over forty years in China as a member of the English Baptist Missionary Society. His career has yet to be critically examined as a whole. This article focuses on an interregnum in its long span that Richard called “years of trial and suspense” (1886–1891), during which he clashed with his colleagues in Shanxi province over mission goals and methods. He insisted, for instance, that China’s “complete salvation” must consist of both soul and body. Despite the dual emphasis, however, in practice, he shifted more and more attention to matters of the body, that is, the needs of this life on earth. Herein lay the tensions of his approach. Ever mindful of the evangelical imperative, he distanced himself nonetheless from basic missionary activities like street-chapel preaching and sought to cultivate ties with the “upper classes” and utilize education and literature (translated and original) as tools for China’s “uplifting.” His message, audience, and method intersected a growing Chinese demand for change and rendered him relevant to the late Qing discourse of reform. As a pointer for future research, it is suggested that more Chinese sources are needed to illuminate and corroborate Richard’s account of his China experiences. Also, his cultural role will be better understood in a comparative context alongside the work of other Protestant figures.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonumenta SericaSame topicChinese history and philosophyFrench-language works237,207