Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Haila questions the dominant ‘story’ that ‘imperfections’ in Chinese urban land markets can only be resolved through state sanctioned private property rights. She interrogates the meaning of concepts such as ‘market’ or ‘property’, wary of the ‘ontological fallacy’ in which concepts are confused for real objects. Drawing from Mitchell (1991 ), we seek to take this farther, by tracing how a distinction between property as representation and as reality is produced, and seeking to evaluate the effects this divide has on social practice. Rather than treating property in the Chinese context as an abstraction, we urge scholars to be alive to its empirically and ethically diverse manifestations. Résumé Haila conteste le ‘récit’ dominant selon lequel les ‘imperfections’ des marchés fonciers urbains chinois ne peuvent se résoudre que par des droits de propriété privée cautionnés par l'État. Elle interroge la signification de concepts tels que ‘le marché’ ou ‘la propriété’, se méfiant de ‘l'illusion ontologique’ où l'on confond concepts et objets réels. Partant des travaux de Mitchell (1991), nous prolongeons cette idée en décrivant la distinction qui s'établit entre la propriété comme représentation et la propriété comme réalité; sont aussi évalués les effets de cette différenciation sur la pratique sociale. Au lieu de traiter la propriété dans le cadre chinois comme une abstraction, nous invitons les chercheurs à prendre conscience de la diversité de ses manifestations tant sur le plan empirique que sur le plan éthique.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".