MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Interrogating the production of urban space in China and Vietnam under market socialism

2009· article· en· W2082816290 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

VenueAsia Pacific Viewpoint · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrbanization and City Planning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrbanizationChinaCapitalismSocialismRelations of productionProduction (economics)Economic systemSpace (punctuation)PoliticsEconomic geographyProcess (computing)Political economyDevelopment economicsPolitical scienceEconomicsEconomic growthCommunism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper explores two issues. First, it focuses on the question of what is the most appropriate theoretical framework for the study of the urbanisation process in China and Vietnam over the last 30 years? It is argued that Le Fefebvre's theory of the ‘production of urban space’ offers the most useful approach because the political economy it adopts helps identify the major driving forces in the urbanisation process in these formerly socialist societies. The second issue involves the investigation of the differences and similarities in the urbanisation process in the two countries that are engaged in similar processes of structural economic transformation. The conclusion suggests that despite historical and cultural differences between Vietnam and China, the urbanisation process in both countries is exhibiting converging features as both countries are adopting a form of ‘hybrid urbanisation’ that involves a combination of socialist and market economies that does not involve an inevitable move to ‘capitalism’.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.234

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.256 · 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