MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2467386053 · doi:10.1177/1077800416655826

The Politics of Rebuilding Chinese Sociology in 1980s

2016· article· en· W2467386053 on OpenAlexaff
Ping‐Chun Hsiung

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Inquiry · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicContemporary Sociological Theory and Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyPoliticsLegitimacyBourgeoisieChinaDisciplineIdentity (music)Social scienceQualitative researchSociological researchEpistemologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chinese sociology was denounced and abolished as “bourgeois science” for more than a quarter of a century (1952-1979). This article examines the politics of rebuilding Chinese sociology. Examining lectures, reports, and essays associated with the first three officially approved research projects (1981-1986), I clarify why the quantitative paradigm was embraced by sociologists at the expense of qualitative inquiry. With the introduction of survey questionnaire methods from the West and the making of sociological knowledge “useful” within China, sociology rebuilt its disciplinary identity and legitimacy. Based upon my analysis, I lay out three thematic issues essential to a critical, decentered approach in qualitative research.

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 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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative InquirySame topicContemporary Sociological Theory and PracticeFrench-language works237,207