MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Four Theses in the Study of China’s Urbanization

2006· article· en· W1996250882 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Urban and Regional Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChina's Socioeconomic Reforms and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrbanizationChinaModernityEconomic geographyScholarshipGlobalizationCivilizationGeographySociologyPolitical scienceEconomic growthEconomicsLawArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article is written specifically for students of Chinese urbanization who are not sinologists. Four theses should inform their studies. The first is that China is an ancient urban civilization, but the processes we observe today are unprecedented. Thus, China’s urbanization must be studied under this dual aspect, giving due to both historical continuities and the unique characteristics of our own era. The second thesis argues that urbanization is a set of multidimensional socio‐spatial processes of at least seven different and overlapping dimensions, each with its own vocabulary and traditions of scholarship. The study of China’s urbanization thus requires a trans‐disciplinary approach. Thesis number three argues that urbanization involves rural–urban relations, but in contrast with many earlier studies, these relationships should be studied from an urban rather than rural perspective. Finally, and most contentiously, China’s urbanization, although entwined with globalization processes, is to be understood chiefly as an endogenous process leading to a specifically Chinese form of modernity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.355
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.311 · 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