Reinterpretation of cultural imperialism: emerging domestic market vs continuing US dominance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Korean audio-visual industry has begun producing and exporting domestic television programs and films on a large scale, while reducing imports from the US. The reverse or counter-cultural imperialism, which emphasized the arrival of cultural pluralism, seems to apply in the case of Korea, with the rapid growth of domestic cultural industries and their exports to the East and Southeast Asian regions. The process remains complex, however, because the US still dominates the Korean cultural market through both cultural products and capital. This article investigates the recent development of Korea’s cultural industry as empirical evidence to demonstrate whether cultural imperialism has phased out. It explores Korean cultural product flow in Asia by focusing on product sourcing as well as several dimensions of causality for the increase in exports of cultural products to ascertain the role of the Korean cultural industry in audiovisual product trade in recent years. It then challenges the assertions made by the reverse cultural imperialism thesis and explores whether the concept of cultural imperialism is still useful in explaining the Korean cultural market. The article also analyzes the nature of the transnationalization of the Korea cultural industry as one of the most significant forms of current cultural imperialism
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".