Weijing Lu. <i>Arranged Companions: Marriage and Intimacy in Qing China</i>.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Arranged Companions: Marriage and Intimacy in Qing China, Weijing Lu aims her critique at “ahistorical assumptions about arranged marriage” in late imperial China in which young men, but especially young women and girls, were forced into conjugal relations with strangers selected by their parents (4). Such stereotypical narratives about China’s past practices were constructed by the modernizing May Fourth Movement in the early twentieth century in contrast to the Western model of freedom of individual choice based on romantic love. To deconstruct this monolithic view, Lu seeks to show the richness and complexity of this cultural phenomenon in late imperial China, especially during the High Qing period (late seventeenth to early nineteenth century), when the ideal and practice of perfect-match marriage and marital companionship constituted a strong cultural trend among the scholarly elite in the affluent southeast Jiangnan (Yangzi River Delta) region. Although this argument can be made without addressing or reproducing the reductionist perspective or rhetoric of May Fourth modernity, Lu’s extensive research on marital practices and sensitive interpretation of men’s and women’s personal writings on and in marriage offers rich insights into a ubiquitous experience that has received little attention on a large scale by historians.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".