MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2109443009 · doi:10.5539/ass.v5n4p59

The Reflection of Contemporary Chinese Social Mentality via Internet: A Content Analysis of Comments from the Pray-for-blessings Website

2009· article· en· W2109443009 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fu‐Yang Yu, Zhaoxu Li, Ying Li, Lulu Jiang, Jia Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChina Postdoctoral Science Foundation
KeywordsSympathyTheismChinaContent (measure theory)Social psychologyCohesion (chemistry)PsychologySociologyReligious studiesPhilosophyPolitical scienceLawTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research made a content analysis of comments from a pray-for-blessings website after the 2008 Sichuan Earthquake happened. Contemporary Chinese social mentality is supposed to be reflected by the results. It explores that most netizens wrote the comments in the National Mourning Day. The contents of these comments are divided into 13 species: pray for the disaster areas, pray for China, pray for the rescuers, pray for others, group cohesion, suggestions, love, sympathy, questioning the China Seismological Bureau, appreciation, information of earthquake, schadenfreude, uselessness of praying. Although there was some negative emotion as schadenfreude and some complains appeared, the whole was positive. The source of negative ones may be from high expectation of China Seismological Bureau and dissatisfaction of the society. Theism and antitheism both existed, there was more theism in the pray-for-blessings, however, antitheism was the primary. In all, the whole country is in the social mentality of the all-concerned, comity, love, cooperation, and advocation of science.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social Science→Same topicDisaster Management and Resilience→French-language works237,207→