Design of deep learning models for intelligent classification of Chinese and Western cultural classics


Abstract

In the rapidly evolving domain of intelligent systems, accurate classification of culturally grounded textual data is critical for advancing machine understanding across diverse semantic and epistemological domains. Recent advances in computational humanities have highlighted the challenges of modeling classical texts with deep cultural embeddings, particularly when traditions exhibit stark contrasts in rhetorical structure, philosophical orientation, and thematic encoding. Existing models often rely on surface-level linguistic cues or rigid taxonomical mappings, lacking the capacity to resolve deep semantic divergences or integrate symbolic cultural ontologies. To address these limitations, we propose a deep learning framework, CulCodeNet, which employs a multi-level architecture incorporating semantic disentanglement, graph-based structural reasoning, and cross-cultural projection layers to capture nuanced rhetorical and thematic signals. This architecture is further enhanced by a training strategy termed Contrastive Cultural Fusion, which integrates contrastive alignment, ontology-grounded supervision, and curriculum-aware sampling. Experimental evaluations demonstrate that the proposed framework significantly outperforms traditional classification baselines on tasks involving high-variance cultural corpora, achieving superior generalization and interpretability. By combining symbolic representation, hierarchical modeling, and contrastive cultural alignment, this approach establishes a novel paradigm for the intelligent analysis of heritage texts, contributing to advancements in cross-lingual, interpretable, and culturally grounded computing.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].