MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315814891 · doi:10.1177/0009445515613867

Local Confucian Revival in China

2016· article· en· W2315814891 on OpenAlexaff
Alex Payette

Bibliographic record

VenueChina Report · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChinese history and philosophy
Canadian institutionsSocial Sciences and Humanities Research CouncilUniversité de MontréalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaNarrativeReligiosityClosure (psychology)Meaning (existential)Gender studiesPolitical scienceSociologyLawEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the early 1980s, China has witnessed a progressive Confucian revival, especially in the academic and cultural spheres. In particular, since the early 2000s, there has been a progressive expansion of Confucian groups arising from local initiatives all over China in the form of local colleges and study halls. Using four previously unexplored sites, this article studies the multiple modalities of local Confucian revival in the province of Shandong. Through interviews and extensive discussion with members of these groups, we have uncovered a strong adherence to Confucian elements and a convenient religiosity through ritual performances. Therefore, this article not only agrees with previously conducted studies on the revival of Confucianism in China but also adds new empirical elements supporting their conclusions. Finally, this article introduces the ‘Countryside Confucianism experiment’, its current meaning and ties to the ongoing local Confucian resurgence in the province of Shandong as well as its shared identity ‘closure’ characteristics, prevalent among some of these local sites’ narrative.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.015
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChina ReportSame topicChinese history and philosophyFrench-language works237,207