Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jin Ping Mei 金瓶梅 details the legal activities in Ming society with exceptional vividness. In other pre modern Chinese literary narratives, the ending usually featured poetic justice. However, Jin Ping Mei is a novel with unique realism in Chinese fiction in that it does not have a happy ending. More importantly, the novel depicts the normal condition and rationale of life based on guanxi 关系, an informal institution that was ubiquitous in Chinese society. Guanxi is a concrete embodiment of métis in the novel. This article sets out to demonstrate the métis in Jin Ping Mei through the analysis of guanxi in two cases. It argues that Jin Ping Mei depicts guanxi as the rationale of legal activities. Through guanxi, which is achieved through the manipulation of li 禮, ganqing 感情, renqing 人情, and mianzi 面子, gifts, banquets, and intermediaries, the culprits can easily find their way out of the unfavorable condition. The blend of rationality and emotion which is embodied in guanxi is the cultural root of the manipulation in the legal activities. The narrative of legal activities in Jin Ping Mei focuses on the métis based on guanxi in microlevel society and thus achieves unprecedented realism in premodern Chinese fiction narrative.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".