MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1749367962 · doi:10.3968/5990

Policy Changes and Reason Analysis of Bureaucratization of Native Officers in Guizhou in Qing Dynasty

2014· article· en· W1749367962 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mengmei Jiang, Chengbin Luan

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in sociology of science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChinese history and philosophy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBureaucracyFrontierPoliticsPeriod (music)Political scienceAppeasementPolitical economySociologyLawArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Throughout the whole Qing Dynasty, there had been great twists and changes of the bureaucratization of native officers in Guizhou area—with the changes in military and political situations, it had gone through several different policy periods of appeasement in Shunzhi period, the active flow-changing of Wu Sangui, resumption of conciliatory policy in Kangxi period, the comprehensive and all-dimensional native officers bureaucratization in Yongzheng period and the policy rehabilitation of Koreans, Miao nationalities and frontier in Qing Dynasty. As the important strategic pivot, the policy changes of bureaucratization of native officers in Guizhou stands for an epitome for the minority policy at boarders under the domination of central regime for the great unity, the changing reasons of which are not only closely related with the objective military and political situations, but also related with the ruling styles of the emperors themselves. The national strategies of the mainland-frontier integration of Qing Dynasty were constant; the phased policy changes of bureaucratization of native officers were only different in manners and measures. It is just in this phased changes and gradually forwarding process that the bureaucratization of Guizhou realized the general goal of matching politics, economics and culture with the mainland.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.197

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.356 · 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in sociology of scienceSame topicChinese history and philosophyFrench-language works237,207