Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation considers how the party-state of the People’s Republic of China has been mobilizing various forms of interpellation in an attempt to sustain a continuous imagination of a particular community defined on the terms of a shared “Chinese” national identity. As well, the research considers how these forms of interpellation have been challenged by a range of complex diasporic viewer responses. Taking media productions of the Mainland China television industry as my point of reference, I have studied in detail, multiple productions of the widely popular, complex program, the Spring Festival Gala (SFG) produced by China Central Television. Though not without its contradictions, this show has employed various interpellative strategies, persistently and continuously hailing viewers into the subject position of loyal members of an enduring “Chinese\nNationality.”\n However, interpellation is one thing, subjectification within it is another. To\nbetter grapple with the cultural citizenship of transnationalized Chinese, this dissertation also considers observations regarding the receptions of the SFG by diasporic “Chinese subjects” who now live in Canada. While their continuous imagining of the “Chinese Nationality” helps to better understand the complex mechanisms which contribute to the retaining power of interpellation, their moments of “de-imagining” also shed light on the problems and difficulties of such interpellation. These moments are considered as possible openings to the formation of fluid, multiple Chinese subjectivities that lay the groundwork for a “flexible citizenship” (Ong, 1993; 1999) for all “Chinese,” furthering the endeavor to go beyond certain nationalist and/or statist visions of identity, subjectivity, and citizenship.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".