Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plutôt que de présenter directement les caractéristiques politisées du naturalisme chinois, nous nous proposons d’analyser la politisation du naturalisme en Chine comme un processus dynamique et évolutif. En premier lieu, nous nous penchons sur le contexte historique dans lequel le naturalisme est introduit : il s’avère qu’une vision du naturalisme évolutionniste contribue à légitimer la nécessité d’une révolution littéraire chinoise. L’objectif est d’éliminer presque tous les vestiges de la tradition culturelle confucéenne. Au cours de ce processus, la littérature confucéenne dominante cède sa place tout en transmettant sa préoccupation politique à une littérature citadine chinoise dite « vulgaire ». Les deuxième et troisième parties montrent comment le naturalisme stimule les débats autour du thème et de la forme de cette littérature citadine et contribue à la renouveler en une nouvelle littérature moderne qui remplit ses fonctions politiques tout en préservant sa valeur artistique.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".