MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409793618 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127a-237

The Applicability of Numerical Methods in the Quantitative Study of Syntactic Structure of Chinese Language and Literature

2025· article· en· W4409793618 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Research in Science and Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguisticsComputer scienceNatural language processingPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under the dual background of the construction of the "new liberal arts" and the digital wave, the interdisciplinary practice of combining humanities and technology continues to develop.Taking a number of Chinese language and literature works as examples, this paper selects language features from the vocabulary and sentence levels, analyzes the syntactic structure of the selected Chinese language and literature works with the help of natural language processing technology and numerical measurement method of language features improved TF-IDF method, and realizes the discussion of the lexical categories of literary works, such as word length, word frequency, word class distribution and word density, as well as the study of sentence categories such as average sentence length, sentence dispersion and sentence class distribution.It is found that most of the utterances of the selected literary works are monosyllabic words and polysyllabic words, the cumulative proportion of both of them is more than 90%, the highest frequency of occurrence is nouns and verbs, both of them are more than 22%, the average sentence length and sentence dispersion do not differ much, and the overall readability of the selected literary works is better, with a free change of syntactic structure and a stronger narrative of the text.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.388 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it