MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015203902 · doi:10.3968/11536

Quoting the Classics: An Alternative Reinforcement of Regime Legitimacy in China

2020· article· en· W3015203902 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zeyu Kang

Bibliographic record

VenueCross-cultural communication · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChinese history and philosophy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegitimacyPrestigeChinaMoralityLawEconomic JusticeNationalismChinese societySociologyPolitical scienceLaw and economicsPhilosophyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After the opening reform of China, the revival of Chinese traditional culture has raised by the CCP. One characteristic of this revival has emerged with the continuous adaption of the Chinese classics in speeches of top leaders of the CCP . In particular, the current president Xi Jinping likes to cite Chinese traditional classics more than his two predecessors. This paper examines this tendency. At the same time, the CCP propaganda department also actively matches up Xi’s citation. They have published official interpretation books, raised Xi’s personal prestige as a Confucian gentleman possessing the good values of Chinese traditional philosophy. These values are aimed at gaining the support of the conservative climate in Chinese society and adapted to be an alternative for the reinforcement of CCP legitimacy. This paper also examines some concrete governmental policies of raising this adaption and observes that Xi and the CCP have begun to use it to connect with current social problems and their solutions in China, such as officials’ morality, social justice and equality, rule by law and nationalism. However, Xi has not matched this perfect commitment in reality.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.011
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCross-cultural communicationSame topicChinese history and philosophyFrench-language works237,207