Bibliographic record
Abstract
In July 1997, the British government handed Hong Kong back to China as the world wondered whether the building blocks of democracy hastily laid in Hong Kong over the previous two decades were sturdy enough to withstand the change. While many scholars of democratization have focused on outside forces and legal change, the author of this text argues that - in the case of Hong Kong - the societal dimension reveals more clearly the issues and difficulties of establishing a viable democracy. He shows how Hong Kong moved from being a non-democracy in the 1970s to a restricted democracy in the 1980s to a contested democracy in the 1990s and how Hong Kong now negotiates a democratic compromise under Chinese rule. The change in the speed and direction of Hong Kong democratization, argues Alvin Y. So, arises from the clash of interests between service professionals (such as teachers, journalists and lawyers) and the business sector. So highlights the crucial role played by Hong Kong's business-entrepreneurial class, which rose in power and influence, developed an alliance with the Chinese government, and slowed down democratization before the handover. By analyzing the shifting interests and alliances of the populace, So seeks to explain why democracy in Hong Kong under Beijing's rule is much more like the limited democracy of the Hong Kong of the 1980s.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".