Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The concept of legal pluralism was introduced to China in the mid-1990s to address the conflict between state law and local norms and customs. More than two decades after its introduction, the scope of legal pluralism in China has shifted to the coexistence and interaction between state law and nonstate orders. In this article, I review theoretical discussions and empirical studies on legal pluralism in China. The existing studies on legal pluralism focus mostly on rural villages, which marginalizes the lived experience of urban residents who are also caught in China’s rapid legal transplantation in recent decades. At the same time, law and society scholars who study labor dispute resolution in urban China tend to frame the questions as legal mobilization, rather than legal pluralism. The term qingli 情理[commonsense feelings of justice] is a common theme underlying the scholarship of legal pluralism and legal mobilization in China, and thus it has the potential to bring them together and bridge the findings of the two bodies of scholarship. This article contributes to the literature on Chinese law and society by demonstrating the role that qingli plays in bridging different areas of sociolegal studies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".