The multiple frames of ‘Chinese’ values: from tradition to modernity and beyond
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fascination with noting the uniqueness of ‘the Chinese’ and their culture has been an enduring pursuit of many throughout recent history. The psychological study of Chinese values has a long history, from Chinese being included in small-set multi-nation comparative studies, to deeper considerations of ‘the Chinese’ from indigenous and emic perspectives, to seeking to integrate Chinese values into universal etic frameworks. This article aims to position the study of ‘Chinese values’ in the context of the ongoing waves of global values studies to study and assess its contribution, and to bring into print an extensive summary of the vast new developments in values research on the Chinese mainland. It briefly reviews the academic history of values studies, where the definitions, levels, and frames of values are explained. Furthermore, it analyzes the approaches of more recent values research considering the varied assumptions about ‘Chinese values’ in their international context.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 it