MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W323489418

(Re)constructing National Identity : The Case of Xiqu Culture in Taiwan

2011· article· en· W323489418 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joan Hua

Bibliographic record

VenueSound Ideas (University of Puget Sound) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPhilippine History and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentity (music)AestheticsArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Xiqu 戲曲 is a traditional Chinese performing art that combines music, theater, literature, and even acrobatics. Historically, each area in China has developed its own unique xiqu form that is performed in the local dialect and embodies the local music and dance traditions. For this reason, a xiqu form is seen as a representation of the aesthetics of the certain area and the temperament and demeanor of the local people. Taiwan, however, is unique in that multitude of xiqu traditions assembles on the island. The assortment of xiqu forms is only a miniature of the cultural composition of Taiwan, which includes that of the aboriginals, the large groups of Hans 漢人 that emigrated from across the strait from mainland China during various stages in history, and their descendants. Consequently, the identities of the inhabitants of this island are constantly being reshaped by fusions of different traditions, confrontation, conflict, and reconciliation. This process of identity construction is evident in the various xiqu forms in Taiwan. My interviews and informal conversations with performers, xiqu scholars, and audience members from the capital city Taipei and its surrounding area, as well as my attendance at performances and other xiqu activities, demonstrated how the contrast between different xiqu forms and their former social connotations seem to be dwindling; what surfaces now is a collective Taiwanese identity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSound Ideas (University of Puget Sound)Same topicPhilippine History and CultureFrench-language works237,207