Bibliographic record
Abstract
On October 27, 2014, China decided to focus on building a number of new high-end think-tank has a greater impact and international influence, attention to the construction of specialized think tank. Also decided to focus on building 50-100 countries need, distinctive, institutional innovation, specialized think tank to lead the development of new high-end, 2020, the formation of a new think tank system with Chinese characteristics. In the eighteenth Third Plenary Session of the Communist Party of China put forward, top-level design, system construction and other aspects of foreign exchange from the think tank building become part of China policy decision-making system. These important expositions showed both think tank construction is to promote an important part of national governance systems and governance modernization, but also for the construction with Chinese characteristics pointed out the fundamental direction of the new think tank, put forward the overall requirements. However, from the “food poisoning” is said to be “lactose intolerance” to the “those old petitioners ... at least 99% or more mental problems”, “only widen the gap between rich and poor, society can progress”, “nail house” pushing up prices “absurd arguments of these experts; in this” digestion authority “era, expert repair has become” brick House”, people become” old do not believe. “With the occurrence of fermentation Chinese social confidence crisis, along with the expert authority of digestion and decline, today’s society is being staged reality version of “Zhen Huan Chuan”. Credibility—as happened Premised think tank building, now just like the “luxury” like scarce. Thus, the crack credibility crisis, bear the brunt of the moment we are building with Chinese characteristics, the new think tank problems to be solved.
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 | 0.017 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".