Bibliographic record
Abstract
China's quest for a modern constitutional polity in the past one hundred years is still an unfinished business.It is this research's argument that for China to become a modern polity, it needs further social and political development, so that the Chinese people will have a stake in its polity and its constitutional framing.The research question of this thesis asks what lessons can we learn to support this argument from the analyses of the divergence/convergence between constitutional intents and the social and political needs of the past one hundred years.The key lessons learned in support of the research argument are as follows:-The traditional Chinese response to scarcity caused its underdevelopment.Underdevelopment in modern time is not an option as it has serious consequences.-Not actively competing in the world was the ultimate source of China's past decays.-Functional/institutional designs harming political participation can cause instability.-Ideology driven social restructuring can be disastrous due to its partiality.-State directed constitutional framing can hardly be expected to produce constitutionalism.-Constitutionalism requires social forces putting demands on the state.-Constitutionalism must be supported by statutes and political reforms.-The origin of a constitutional idea does not matter as long as it is truly needed in China.The research result makes clear what the state needs to do in its next phase of development.The current leaders' recognition of the need to put state power under the constitution is a sign of new convergence towards people's demand for rights, rule of law and opposition to corruption and abuse of power.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".