Bibliographic record
Abstract
戴震《尚書》學研究貫穿其學術的前後期。乾隆二十二年（1757）之前是其学术研究前期，主要著作有《尚書今文古文考》《經考》等。乾隆二十二年（1757）之後是其學術研究的後期，代表作爲《尚書義考》，其成書最早不過乾隆二十七年（1762）冬。《尚書今文古文考》簡明扼要地勾勒出漢代《尚書》今古文源流；《尚書義考》雖未成書，但其義例之謹嚴，當爲世人所重。戴震的學術研究遵循“以聲音求文字，由文字求訓詁，以訓詁求典章制度，由典章制度求義理”的學術路徑，並貫徹“以詞通道”的研經原則，垂範後世。 Dai Zhen’s studies on Shangshu (Book of Documents) lasted throughout his scholarship. His earlier works (before 1757, the 22nd year of Qianlong’s reign) include Shangshu jinwen guwen kao (On the Old Text and the New Text of the Book of Documents) and Jing kao (Examinations of the Classics). Shangshu yikao (Explanation of the Meanings of the Book of Documents) is the representative work of his later scholarship (after 1757, the 22nd year of Qianlong’s reign). He appeared to have written Shangshu yikao no earlier than the winter of 1762 (the 27th year of Qianlong’s reign). Shangshu jinwen guwen kao concisely outlines old and new sources of Han-dynasty Shangshu. Although Shangshu yikao had not been compiled into a volume during his lifetime, his citations therein are rigorous and well-respected. Dai Zhen’s scholarship followed this path: to understand characters through the sound; to pursue exegesis through characters; to grasp the system of codes and rules of governance through exegesis; to arrive at principles of things by examining codes and rules of governance) and observes the principle of yi ci tong dao (to pursue the way through words).
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".