Consolidation of the PRC’s Leadership Succession System from Hu Jintao to Xi Jinping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The People’s Republic of China went through a peaceful and orderly transfer of power from November 2012 to March 2013, the second one in its 64-year history. The first one was the 2002–3 change of leadership from Jiang Zemin to Hu Jintao. While largely following the same pattern, the recent leadership change, from Hu Jintao to Xi Jinping, illustrated a few interesting and potentially significant differences even as the succession system was further consolidated. This article compares the recent leadership change with the previous one, analyses the differences and discusses their political implications. The increasingly institutionalised procedure for China’s leadership succession now features the state leaders’ tenure being limited to two consecutive five-year terms, and the choice of successors through a gradually broadening elite consensus. For the Chinese Communist Party, the purpose of the term limit is to prolong its one-party rule by having orderly power transfers and avoiding succession crises. The limited term of office is likely to contribute to China’s political stability while promoting a degree of institutionalised intra-party factional competition.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".