Study on the Administrative Divisions in China’s Border Areas from the Perspective of Nation-state Building --- Changes to the Administrative Divisions in Inner Mongolia in the 20th Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the end of the Yuan Dynasty to the early Qing Dynasty, when Inner Mongolia was still a special administrative region of the Qing Empire, the Mongolian nomad's territory went through numerous significant changes. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the administrative divisions in Inner Mongolia underwent three major changes and after continuous integration they were incorporated into the administrative territory of the People's Republic of China in a manner that was compatible with the behavior of a modern nation-state. Such changes can neither be ascribed to the natural process of national development and it’s accompanying fissions nor to the sinocization of Inner Mongolian initiated by Han migrants. Instead, it is derived from the game of power played in the region by various forces, from the Manchu and Han peoples, to the Mongolians, Russians and Japanese, and the Kuomintang and the Chinese Communist Party in the period of surging modern nationalism. This is evidenced by the changes of division in Hulunbuir in particular. This case is enough to demonstrate that the issues of China’s border and nations are not simply equivalent to the binary opposition between Central Plains and border areas, between Han and ethnic minorities, but a process teeming with complex and diverse points of contention, political wrestling matches and other interactions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".