MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321466385 · doi:10.1111/gec3.12117

Chinese Non‐Governmental Organisations and Civil Society: A Review of the Literature

2014· review· en· W2321466385 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeography Compass · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChina's Socioeconomic Reforms and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCivil societyTransformative learningState (computer science)Political sciencePoliticsChinese societySociologyPolitical economyPublic administrationChinaLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article reviews the literature on Chinese non‐governmental organisations (NGOs) and civil society and argues that to understand the transformative potential of Chinese NGOs we need to consider beyond macro‐level political change. By looking at the tactics and strategies of engagement between NGOs and the state, it becomes clear that Chinese NGOs are capable of affecting communities and change at the local level. Furthermore, to fully understand the capacity of Chinese NGOs, this article argues that we cannot insist on a state–society separation as we would in other jurisdictions because it would not lead to fruitful analysis. The state of the field is assessed through an interdisciplinary lens, characterised by four major themes: the linkage between the rise of NGOs and the expansion of civil society; the rise of NGOs as a reflection of state–society relations; NGO sectoral development; and, to a lesser extent, the development of theory and frameworks.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score0.700

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.287 · 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