A Study of the Feminization of Young Men's Dress in the Upper Class in the Late Qing Dynasty and the Early Republic of China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When the decree to cut pigtails and change clothing was introduced in the late Qing and early Republican periods, there were many clothing changes. The feminization of men's clothing was widely discussed at the time as a distinctive dress code trend. This article looks at the historical documents that documented this event and analyses the specific manifestations of this phenomenon by looking at the groups and regions where the feminization of men's clothing took place. The article analyses the phenomenon of men wearing women's clothing to blur their gender and explore the image of cross-dressing men in the society of the time and its meaning. Through the analysis of historical documents on the diverse, outward expressions of cross-dressing men, the fact that diversity in masculinity existed in that time is illustrated. This leads to further induction of the respective images of masculinity and a discussion of the various reasons behind this phenomenon. The article concludes with an attempt to reveal the motives that produced the feminization of men's dressing, both in terms of external social and internal causes, and to discuss whether the feminization of men's dressing in the late Qing Dynasty involved transgender identity the analysis of masculinity.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".