Bibliographic record
Abstract
How did imperial subjects cope with the aporias of legal and human rights as a modern legal system was forcibly implemented in colonial Taiwan? This article examines the toll of legal change on Taiwanese and their embryonic yet resolute resistance to the enactment of laws concerning the measurement system, the patent system, and the maintenance of public order, represented in Taiwanese fiction by Lai He, Yang Shouyu, and Rong Yingzhong. Wrestling with the imbroglio of legal rights and colonial coercion, they devised sociocultural mechanisms through which to extricate themselves from it. Furthermore, the article explores the ways in which Taiwanese creatively tapped into regional resources such as metis or practical knowledge (James Scott), public opinion, and trust based on mutual recognition and eco-cultural awareness, irrespective of race and nationality, as they had to live with a relentless barrage of law enforcement and thought control. With a focus on the relationship between the implementation of law and temporality, this study shows how the colonized perform their agency with praxis in order to renounce the capitalist model of living for profits and self-interest; it thus presents a significant case study for contemplating the possibility of dismantling the imperial governance system from within. An in-depth analysis of an alternative mode of communal life and the counter-“othering” of Japanese by Taiwanese brings the nuanced but profound voice of the colonized back into the current discussions of colonial Taiwanese literature as well as of imperial formations (Ann Stoler), which have, by and large, centered on the politics of identity formation and neglected the agency of imperial subjects under colonial dominance.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".