The Construction of Agonistic and Strategic Landscape in Chinese Painting of the 1920s and 1930s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses the construction of nature in Chinese painting during the period of the late 1920s and 1930s. In this period, in the context of nationalism, in order to arouse people’s national sentiments, artists constructed, or even distorted nature as a threatening “other” of human beings or as a strategic landscape to be controlled by human beings. Both convey the idea of agonistic relationship between human beings and nature. This idea was new, betraying the traditional idea of “harmony between man and nature” and the traditional image of nature as an idealized utopia without any political associations. Most scholars argue that in the 1950s Chinese painting began to produce representations of nature and people in a new ideology with all kinds of “struggle” as the main theme. However, this phenomenon actually began as early as the late 1920s and 1930s. In this new construction, the appearance of nature was portrayed as destructive or as a battlefield, while human beings were represented as battlers, which is the result of social context and ideology.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".