MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Industrialization in China

2017· book-chapter· en· W2597977658 on OpenAlexaff
Loren Brandt, Debin Ma, Thomas G. Rawski

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChina's Socioeconomic Reforms and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersRheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn
KeywordsChinaIndustrialisationOpenness to experienceLiberalizationIndustrial policyCapital (architecture)Secondary sector of the economyBusinessInternational tradeEconomyEconomicsMarket economyPolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter views industrial growth in China over the last 150 years as an ongoing process through which firms acquired and deepened manufacturing capabilities. Two factors have been consistently important: openness to the international economy and domestic market liberalization. For a latecomer like China, modern industry initially has greatest success in more labour-intensive products requiring only modest capabilities. Gradual upgrading entails the shift into more skilled-labour and capital-intensive products and processes. Our construction and review of long-term data shows that (i) China’s industrial growth rate consistently exceeded that of Japan, India, and Russia/USSR throughout most of the twentieth century; (ii) China’s shift from textiles and other light industry toward defence-related industries began before rather than after 1949, as did the geographic spread of industry; and (iii) the state sector has consistently been a brake on industrial upgrading, highlighting the significance of current reform initiatives in determining China’s future industrial path.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 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

Citations30
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicChina's Socioeconomic Reforms and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207