@article{oai:iwate-pu.repo.nii.ac.jp:00001213,
 author = {米地, 文夫 and 三浦, 修 and 平塚, 明 and YONECHI, Fumio and MIURA, Osamu and HIRATSUKA, Akira},
 issue = {3},
 journal = {総合政策, Journal of policy studies},
 month = {Mar},
 note = {宮沢賢治の作品にしばしば登場する「標本」と「証拠」という語について、自然科学の立場から検討を加えた。自然愛好家であり教師でもある賢治は、「標本」を、展示用、教材用の見せる「もの」としての「標本」sampleと考えていた。彼は本質的に研究者ではなく、彼の「標本」には, 研究者がより重要と考える《研究の材料、研究の保証となる証拠としての「標本」specimen》は含まれていなかった。「標本」specimenを、研究者は「こと」を説明する科学的な「証拠」voucherとして用いる。しかし賢治はこれらは「標本」と呼ばず、「証拠」と書いている。賢治は一種の不可知論者でもあったので、学者が挙げる「証拠」が描く世界像は、時代とともに変わると考えていたのである。, This paper reviews the terms "hyohon" and "shoko", that often appear in the works of Kenji Miyazawa, from the viewpoint of natural science. The definition of nature lover and teacher Kenji Miyazawa's "hyohon" was that it is a "sample", as an "object" to be shown for display and educational purposes. He was not a researcher by nature, and his definition did not include "specimen as evidence that offers materials to study and substantiates research", which is taken as something very important by researchers. Researchers use hyohon (specimen)" as scientific evidence (voucher) to explain a certain subject. Kenji, however, did not call them "hyohon", but used "shoko (evidence)" in his writings. Since he was a kind of agnostic, he considered that the image of a world described by "evidence" offered by scholars would change with the times., 4, KJ00004255930, 論文, Article},
 pages = {391--409},
 title = {宮沢賢治作品における「標本」と「証拠」},
 volume = {5},
 year = {2004},
 yomi = {ヨネチ, フミオ and ミウラ, オサム and ヒラツカ, アキラ}
}