Bibliographic record
Abstract
The English version of this paper can be found at https://ssrn.com/abstract=3546575 Chinese Abstract: 自1949年以来，中国尝试了许多成功与不成功的社团主义实验。这些阶段拥有的共同点是，它们都采用了自上而下的“国家社团主义”的方法，尽管国家的参与度有所变化。但是在当今这个时代，正在逐步努力建立一个自下而上“社会社团主义”。同期，我们也见证了从中央集权的社团主义国家转向地方政府拥有更大空间实施社团主义技术国家的转变，即允许设立地方级的企业和专业社团，且提供地方政府指导的协商空间。随着中国迈入下一个十年，对中国社团主义进行反思在两方面是有用的。第一，进入中国的外国公司和政府，特别是来自多元化竞争社会的外国公司和政府，往往会误解企业、社团和国家之间的联系。他们错误地认为国家引导和腐败是同义的。第二，在对中国社团主义有了更深刻的理解后，我们发现在中国成长为经济超级大国期间，中国从社团主义实验中吸取了经验教训，这有利于外国的决策制定者考虑采取更加稳定的社团政策。 English Abstract: Since 1949, China has tried a large number of successful and not-so-successful corporatist experiments. What these phases have in common is a ‘state corporatist’ (top-down) approach, albeit with shifting degrees of state involvement; and in the present era, a snail’s pace effort towards building a ‘societal corporatism’ (bottom-up). Over the same time period, we have also witnessed a shift from a centrally controlled corporatist state to one in which the local state has greater space to implement corporatist techniques – allowing the formation of business and professional associations at the local level, and providing them a space for local state-directed bargaining. As China embarks on its next decade, a consideration of Chinese corporatism is useful in two respects. First, foreign corporations and governments who engage in China, particularly if they come from pluralist-competitive societies, tend to misunderstand the nexus of businesses, organizations, and the state. They wrongful presume that state direction and corruption are synonymous. A more nuanced understanding of Chinese corporatism, however, leads to an important second point – that some lessons learned by Chinese experiments in corporatism, during the very period of its ascent to becoming an economic superpower, may be beneficial for foreign policymakers considering paths to a more stable public life.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".