MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082686567 · doi:10.1080/23812346.2020.1807889

Rethinking China’s quest for railway standardization: competition and complementation

2020· article· en· W3082686567 on OpenAlexaff
Karl Yan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chinese Governance · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTransport and Economic Policies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaCompetitor analysisStandardizationCompetition (biology)International tradeBusinessCorporate governanceCorporationPolitical scienceEconomyEngineeringEconomicsFinanceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Railroad Economic Belt (REB, yilu yidai) was initiated by the China Railway Corporation to support the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The goal of REB is to enhance interconnectivity and deepen the BRI’s infiltration through the export of ‘China Standards’ (zhongguo biaozhun) in railway development. This paper focuses on China’s export of the ‘China Standard’ in highspeed rail and the further integration of Eurasia through the China Railway Express (zhong’ou banlie). It examines their implications on the global highspeed rail market and global logistics governance, respectively. Indeed, China can become a rule-maker in some functional domains of global governance. This paper argues that the expansion of Chinese standards has been done through a ‘top-level design’ approach. Chinese economic statecraft focused on strengthening policy guidance and power concentration at the central level. Standards that are competing in nature face daunting challenges as they have receive backlashes from international competitors. On the other hand, those that are complementary have been much more receptive to international actors.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.015
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chinese GovernanceSame topicTransport and Economic PoliciesFrench-language works237,207