MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414764665 · doi:10.5539/ass.v21n5p64

A Comparative Study of Laozi and Socrates’ Humanistic Thoughts

2025· article· en· W4414764665 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lijun Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChinese history and philosophy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanismSOCRATESRealmRelevance (law)Value (mathematics)Period (music)Ancient GreekHumanistic psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The period from 600 BCE to 300 BCE was a pivotal era, during which various civilizations in the East and West made significant breakthroughs. In the East, the ancient Chinese sage Laozi, living in a time of moral decay and social upheaval, transcended the practical realm to recognize the intrinsic value of humanity. This led him to develop a series of doctrines on ethics and self-cultivation. In the West, the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates focused his thoughts on self-knowledge, bringing philosophy from the divine to the human realm, thus marking the beginning of Western humanistic concern. Both Laozi and Socrates introduced their respective humanistic ideas during this period, yet the origins of their thoughts differ greatly. A comparative study of Laozi and Socrates' humanistic philosophies will offer a deeper understanding of their humanistic spirit, explore the relevance of their ideas to modern society, and contribute to the inheritance of excellent traditional cultures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0100.020
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social Science→Same topicChinese history and philosophy→French-language works237,207→