MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063761998 · doi:10.1177/0170840604045092

The Characteristics of Chinese Personal Ties (Guanxi): Evidence from Hong Kong

2004· article· en· W2063761998 on OpenAlexaff
Irene Hau‐Siu Chow, Ignace Ng

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganization Studies · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuanxiClosenessChinaFace (sociological concept)PsychologySocial psychologyUnit (ring theory)Family tiesStrong tiesInterpersonal tiesSociologyPolitical scienceGenealogyLawHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A widely held view in management is that guanxi(or Chinese personal connections) are a key element in the success of East Asian economies. In spite of their importance, very little is known about the various characteristics of guanxi. Using data obtained from Hong Kong respondents, we found that classmates, club members, and family friends are guanxibases from which the respondents developed close relationships. Contrary to expectations, associates who work with the respondents or are distant family relatives, or both, tend to have distant relationships with the respondents. We also found that the effect of gender on the closeness of relationships is asymmetrical, with female-to-female dyads being close and male-to-male dyads being distant. Further, our study shows that there is a tendency to request ‘costly’ favors from family members instead of nonfamily members. Lastly, we provide some evidence linking the size of one’s network to one’s ‘face’ in society. Overall, the results suggest a weakening of the family unit in Chinese societies.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations106
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrganization StudiesSame topicWork-Family Balance ChallengesFrench-language works237,207