Fanben Kaixin : Exploring the Potential of Chinese Traditional Culture for Promoting a More Holistic Understanding of Sustainability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis aims to explore the interconnections between Chinese traditional culture, particularly that rooted in Confucianism, and sustainability. Specifically, it seeks to determine whether Confucian teachings and principles, from environmental and cultural perspectives, can promote a more holistic understanding of sustainability. To achieve this, the thesis proposes a conceptual framework consisting of three concepts: Ecocentrism, Hegemony, and Cultural Shift. This framework serves two purposes: first, to establish a context for a holistic understanding of sustainability, and second, to build a bridge between Confucianism and sustainability. Through a review of primary sources (i.e., original Confucian literature) and secondary sources (i.e., interpretations of Confucianism by comtemporary scholars), this thesis collects and summarizes Confucian teachings and principles that offer non-Western perspectives and visions of sustainability. It then critically analyzes the alignments and misalignments of these teachings with Western discussions of sustainability from both environmental and cultural perspectives. In the concluding section, the thesis illustrates the potential of Confucianism to contribute to a more holistic understanding of sustainability by exploring its impact on values, power relationships, and the envisioning of a sustainable future. Ultimately, this thesis offers a structured synthesis of Confucian insights into sustainability and suggests an innovative approach to comprehending sustainability through the lens of traditional Chinese philosophy.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".