MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2201596577 · doi:10.1177/0002764215580586

Social Networks in East and Southeast Asia II

2015· article· en· W2201596577 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent Chua, Barry Wellman

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Behavioral Scientist · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChina's Socioeconomic Reforms and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational University of Singapore
KeywordsFriendshipKinshipAffect (linguistics)Interpersonal tiesSocial capitalEast AsiaChinaSociologyMainland ChinaSocial network (sociolinguistics)PopulationGeographyGender studiesPolitical scienceSocial mediaSocial scienceDemographyAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This second issue continues our study of social networks and social capital in East and Southeast Asia. The articles show both similarities and differences in how each country’s social contexts significantly affect the nature of their social networks. The articles consistently show an Asian version of networked individualism, based on close kinship and friendship, hierarchies, strong work ethics, frequent travel, and digital media. In Thai villages, migrants send remittances to family members back home to honor broader village networks and norms. In China, migrants who come from wealthier village families have larger friendship networks in cities. In Hong Kong, cultural differences such as language limit social interactions between Mainland Chinese and Hong Kong students. In Singapore, population characteristics substantially affect inter-ethnic contact. While social norms circumscribe behavior on Twitter in Japan, Sina Weibo in China is a more chaotic space with much fraudulent practice. In Taiwan, online and offline networks combine to affect participation in voluntary associations. In China and Singapore, authoritative contacts and weak ties increase as well as reduce personal well-being.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

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 studies0.0010.002
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Behavioral ScientistSame topicChina's Socioeconomic Reforms and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207