The emergence and transformation of self-determination claims in Hong Kong and Catalonia: A historical institutionalist perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a historical institutionalist framework emphasizing the importance of transformative events, this paper seeks to explain the sudden emergence of self-determination claims in Hong Kong and their transformation into separatist ones in Catalonia. The paper argues that the inflexibility of the state in addressing moderate demands for regional autonomy has played a major role in the emergence and radicalization of these demands. In Hong Kong, the 1997 Handover from British to Chinese sovereignty was originally presented as an opportunity for self-governance under the principle of “Hong Kong People ruling Hong Kong” and the “One Country, Two Systems” formula. If Hong Kong nationalism was practically unheard of in the early years of the Handover, the unconciliatory attitude of the central government towards moderate demands for the actualization of the autonomy and democratization frameworks vested in Hong Kong’s Basic Law has directly contributed to the formation of today’s emerging self-determination movement. In Catalonia, the 2010 decision of the Spanish Constitutional Court to annul some articles of the reform to the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia and to interpret others narrowly represented a transformative event that took Catalonia onto the pathway of secessionist politics. The secessionist turn was then further fed by the on-going refusal of the central government to negotiate with the Catalan government, notably on the notion of a popular consultation on the political future of the Autonomous Community.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".