Theoretical and Conceptual Perspectives on the Periphery in Contemporary China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
China exists geographically and conceptually at the centre of an ever-widening series of concentric borderlands. For most of the imperial and modern periods, China's cultural centre rested along the course of the Yellow River. Today, China's relations with the borderlands of the “Inner Periphery” reflect a combination of cultural superiority and deep-seated unease, standing against the context of the policy imperatives of national integration. From Beijing's perspective, the Periphery, comprising Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan, reflects historical influences of imperialism and internationalization that have drawn these mainly Chinese societies into greater integration with the world political economy. In both the Inner and the Outer Peripheries, relations with China proper and the central government are conflicted by differences of expectation about autonomy; by differences in perspectives of place that construct the peripheries alternatively as homelands or as border zones of key strategic importance to China; and by differences in ethnicity, language, and culture that affect dynamics of development and organization. Comparison both within and between the Inner and Outer Peripheries can yield important insights not only into China's relations with these areas -- an issue important in its own right -- but also into China's sense of itself. Such comparisons can reveal the ways in which pursuit of national integration in China remains contingent up on central and local conditions, interests and explanations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".