Some Memory Devices of Early Chinese Textile Technologies and Artisans’ Transmission of Knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Patterned silks served as signifiers for rituals and status in early China. They were patterned using different techniques, for example, some sha-silks from Mawangdui dated to 168 CE were repeatedly stamped with motifs while other silks were woven with monochrome or polychrome motifs. The technical knowledge for producing such silks was embodied as internal memory in the artisans who predominantly worked in state- run workshops until the mid-first century BCE. Artisans also invented external memory devices to facilitate their work. Some devices – bronze stamps and pattern-shafts on looms – have been unearthed from Guangzhou and Laoguanshan dated to 122 and 118 BCE respectively. Most techniques did not circulate widely, and over time, some disappeared and were then replaced by others. Lacking artisans’ own accounts, this article examines these external memory devices in the workshop context to suggest the hypothesis that the transmission of the embodied knowledge depended on the mobility and freedom of the artisans.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".