A New Form of Governance or the Reunion of the Government and Business Sector? A Case Analysis of the Collaborative Natural Disaster Insurance System in the Zhejiang Province of China
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The purpose, structure, and outcomes of cross-sector collaborations are subject to the institutional environment from which they emerge. This article examines how institutional background could determine the nature of cross-sector collaborations through a case study of the collaborative natural disaster insurance system in the Zhejiang Province of China. Although a guiding principle of reform in China asserts that the system should be operated based on market mechanisms, we find in practice that a market for insurance is far from being established. Insurance products are primarily designed by the government and marketed through administrative mobilization instead of market channels. Business organizations take a passive role, without attempting to create new insurance products, while enjoying monopolistic benefits created by connections to the Chinese government. The emerging government and business collaboration in China may not represent a new governance form to maximize efficiency, but instead...
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it