Stability and change in strategic action fields: Municipal solid waste incineration in China, 1988–2020
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The theory of strategic action fields (SAFs) is a perspective from which to better understand the emergence, stability, and change of the meso-level social order. However, the transferability of this theoretical perspective requires additional empirical evidence. Therefore, this study regards municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration in China as a SAF, in which various forces vie for the dominant position around the construction and operation of incineration plants. Given that all fields are embedded in a shifting social and cultural context, I analyze the interactions and competitions between incumbents and challengers. I then examine a series of consecutive events in the SAF, such as the emergence of the waste crisis, the development of MSW incineration, and consequential episodes of contention. I also investigate other factors that may affect the prospects for stability and change of the SAF, including actions of the state, influences of other related fields, and large-scale crises. By tracing the developmental trajectory of the SAF of MSW incineration, I discuss the applicability of the theory of SAFs to understanding an underexplored field in China.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".