Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter is a critical review of recent Mao Zedong scholarship in China based on a reading of relevant literature of nearly 3 million Chinese words. It aims to acquaint Western readers with the various points of view, assumptions, and controversies in Mao scholarship in the People's Republic of China (PRC). In consideration of the limited space, this chapter will give only a general account of the positions taken by Chinese scholars, with quotations only from original literature. This chapter is divided into four parts: (1) the subtle changes of official ideology, (2) the criticisms of the Liberal school, (3) the arguments of the New Left scholars, and (4) the narratives of the Historical school. I will recapitulate the main points and themes of these schools in succession and then offer a brief conclusion. THE SUBTLE CHANGES IN OFFICIAL IDEOLOGY Official ideology refers to the interpretation of Mao and his thought by the ruling party [the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)], which controls the power of political discourse in Chinese Mao scholarship in order to reinforce its own political legitimacy. From this perspective, the primary task of Mao studies is to strengthen the influence of the official political discourse. It is worth noting that there exists an approach of subofficial ideology that reinterprets the official points of view on Mao by decorating them with academic language without deviating from the orthodox teaching.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".