Bring the Culture Back in: Institutional Embeddedness between Neo-Confucianism and Patriarchy in Policy Making of Taiwan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following the discussions of Giddens (1979, 1984) and Archer (1993), the dual discussions between agency/structure and culture/structure had been seen as the centrality context of analytical unit in a modern society. Whereas, the structure and the culture interweave and penetrate within the social-political system, as well as exist is relatively autonomous form one another. Furthermore, some culture theorists recognize culture as the means by which orderliness patterned relations are maintained in a society and they tend to be concerned with the symbolic that is social norms and values shared in the cognitive and active structure. This paper wants to argue and reexamine the claim of “cultural theory” which believes a theory of culture must create measures of culture that allow the space for the comparisons across time and space, and relative values to embed into social relations and institutions. In addition, this paper indicates the particular cultural factors and provides the power of explanation in the construction of policymaking circumstance and active system of social behavior. Overall, the cultural factor becomes a potential promoter in the process of policymaking. By the discussion of the articulation between Neo-Confucianism thought (top-down system) and the patriarchal system (bottom-up system), this paper provides why and how the articulation effects to formulate a strained potential control and structural shape different policy manipulations and interactive constructions in the policymaking process of Taiwan. The specific dual system constructs the transmission of cultural shadow to influence the policy outcomes.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".