Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses civilian efforts to restore Chinese sovereignty, in particular the 3rd IPR (Institute of Pacific Relations) discussions on extraterritoriality held in 1929, as well as the ideological gap between China and other countries who attended the IPR conference in recognizing and resolving the issue of extraterritoriality. Following the Opium Wars, Western countries with strong militaries occupied parts of China, making China a semi-colonial country. In that situation, conflicts arose regarding the judicial powers of occupying countries and those of China. At several key points, namely the Paris Conference of 1919, the Washington Conference of 1921, and the Beijing Conference of 1926, The Chinese government advocated the abolition of extraterritoriality. It was this government support that prompted greater civilian efforts to discuss the extraterritoriality issue in the 1929 conference. Most non-Chinese participants at the IPR conference were against Chinese demands to abolish extraterritoriality immediately. The IPR discussion focused mainly on establishing a timeframe and procedures to end extraterritoriality? Although Chinese demands were not met in 1929, this kind of civilian effort helped pave the way for the eventual abolition of extraterritoriality. In 1943, the U.S.A, England, Norway and Brazil revoked extraterritoriality, followed by Canada in 1944; Sweden and The Netherlands in 1945; Switzerland, France, and Denmark in 1946; and Italy and Portugal in 1947.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".