Study on the Adjustment Procedures of Administrative Division in China: From The Perspective of Text Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Driven by new urbanization strategy, the administrative division becomes the hot point of public view. However, due to the absence of the legal procedures, in the process of administrative division adjustment, some local people’s appeals have not been responded, which sometimes led to group incidents against social stability. In order to meet the requirements to comprehensively promote the rule of law, the 3th plenary session of 18th CPC Central Committee proposed strict procedures of administrative division adjustment programs, and the 4th Plenary Session proposed to improve the decision-making mechanism in accordance with the law. After carefully combing laws and regulations promulgated by the central and local governments at all levels or Ministry of Civil Affairs, we found that there are many deficiencies in the legal effect, legislative quality, procedures specification, follow-up mechanism and so on. This paper, from the perspective of text analysis, and based on careful reviews, analysis and assessment of the current procedural provisions, gives suggestion of improving the adjustment procedure of administrative division, and provides reference for the legislation of administrative division in the future in the connection of administrative law theory and administrative procedure system.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".