成熟中的中国民间团体？知识和专业性在NGO 发展中的角色 (A Maturing Civil Society in China? The Role of Knowledge and Professionalization in the Development of NGOs)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The version of this paper can be found at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2563696Chinese Abstract: 本文认为中国的非政府组织并不确信自己是内地认知共同体的一部分。根据本文作者在重庆、昆明、南京和上海四个城市进行的访谈，这主要是由于缺乏一套专业性的管理标准和规范。另外，研究显示中国NGO 不认为其首要任务是在自身组织发展生命周期内产出知识。这意味着中国民间团体走的是一条不同的发展道路，中国非政府组织的组织发展过程不符合现存NGO 文献中的描述。 English Abstract: This article suggests that Chinese NGO do not have the conviction that they are part of an epistemic community in mainland China. Interviews conducted in four cities, Chongqing, Kunming, Nanjing and Shanghai, suggests that this can be attributed to a lack of set standards and professionalization governing their sector of operation. Further, the study finds that Chinese NGOs do not see their primary role is to produce knowledge within their organizational development life cycle. This may indicate a varying path towards the maturation of the civil society sector in China, whereby Chinese NGOs do not conform to the organizational development process as outlined in extant NGO literature.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".