Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bai Youtao’s research in Nanjing’s Hui community indicates that all urban historical districts of the traditional Hui community are currently under threat of demolition (Bai 2005). His paper first introduced the results of urban renewal within the Hui community in Tianjin, Xi’an, Guangzhou and Shanghai. His analysis determined that Nanjing’s Hui community was set to make a difficult choice: either accept demolition, thereby rejecting their own traditional culture, or refuse demolition, thus accepting living conditions with inadequate infrastructure and squalid housing. Bai concluded that as these communities have yet to adapt to the modern city, therefore they must accept urban renewal. Liang Jingyu researched in Beijing’s Niujie, famous throughout China for its large scale Hui district. Liang reported that some Hui communities face demolition for urban renewal (Liang 2006). In his report, the urban renewal of Niujie was promoted via discussions between the government, developers, and the local Hui people. Liang found that the result of urban renewal was a decrease in neighborhood ties in Hui communities, an increase in the mixing of Hui and non-Hui residents, and a decline in the sense of belonging to mosques. The Hui are an ethnic minority group in China that believes in Islam. They speak Mandarin Chinese, and their physical appearance closely resembles the ethnic majority group, the Han Chinese. Yet the Hui’s practice of Islam has produced some striking cultural differences between them and the Han Chinese. Their population of 9,816,805 in the year 2000 is found throughout the country. We can find them in cities of relatively large size. In order to facilitate prayer five times per day, many of the Hui live in close proximity to mosques (“Qingzhensi” in Mandarin), forming the heart of their communities. This is known
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".