MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Problems of Cultural Industry Development in Jilin Province and Countermeasures

2013· article· en· W1602514744 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiaolin Zhou, Fang Hu, Aiwei Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueCross-cultural communication · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Industries and Urban Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultural industryStatus quoChinaCulture industryGovernment (linguistics)Corporate governanceBusinessConsumption (sociology)EconomyPolitical scienceSociologyEconomicsSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nowadays, “new governance” and “network governance” become more and more popular. When the government draws up some policies and tries to improve local economic development, a large number of local culture industries and culture festivals are prospering. The cultural industry is a sunrise industry in the 21st century, and it is also the driving force for social progress.Especially with the rapid development of economy in Jilin province of China, more and more people focus on it. But many problems happen during the construction of culture industry because of different factors. In this paper, we have carried on the elaboration from several aspects to the cultural industries development and the brand management in cultural consumption and cultural industry’s development. We show the conception of cultural industry, and then we analyze the status quo and find what happened in the area. Finally, we put forward some of the suggestions and countermeasures which are suitable for the development of cultural industry which are Based on the analysis of the problems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCross-cultural communication→Same topicCultural Industries and Urban Development→French-language works237,207→