ArticlePloS one2017
Comparison of ancient and modern Chinese based on complex weighted networks.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Design anticancer potential of Zn(II)isoleucinedithiocarbamate complex on MCF-7 cell lines: synthesis, characterization, molecular docking, molecular dynamic, ADMET, and in-vitro studies.Molecular diversity · 2024Article
- Differentiating Interpreting Types: Connecting Complex Networks to Cognitive Complexity.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, we compare statistical properties of ancient and modern Chinese within the framework of weighted complex networks. We examine two language networks based on different Chinese versions of the Records of the Grand Historian. The comparative results show that Zipf's law holds and that both networks are scale-free and disassortative. The interactivity and connectivity of the two networks lead us to expect that the modern Chinese text would have more phrases than the ancient Chinese one. Furthermore, by considering some of the topological and weighted quantities, we find that expressions in ancient Chinese are briefer than in modern Chinese. These observations indicate that the two languages might have different linguistic mechanisms and combinatorial natures, which we attribute to the stylistic differences and evolution of written Chinese.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.