Identity Seeking and Constructing Chinese Critical Discourse in the Age of Globalization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At present, almost every scholar of the humanities and social sciences has noticed the fact that talking a lot about globalization has become an academic and intellectual fashion. Some do welcome the advent of globalization viewing it as a good opportunity to develop their career in a broader global context. Others are very afraid of this ghost, fearful that it might well engulf their research fields. It is true that for scholars and intellectuals from the Orient and Third World countries, what they are most anxious about is the (re)location of their culture in such an age of globalization, when cultures from different countries or nations are more and more homogenized and the identity of weak cultures more and more obscured. In the circles of Cultural Studies, this phenomenon, associated with the crisis of national identity and (re) construction of cultural identity, has also attracted the attention of both comparatists and cultural studies scholars. The present essay will first of all deal with the issue of globalization from a cultural and intellectual perspective: it will offer a restrospection on the state of the art of the study of globalization worldwide, and its positive and negative effect on current Chinese cultural and intellectual life as well as academic study. I should also point out that since cultural globalization, as a direct consequence of economic globalization, is beyond anyone's resistance, seeking a sort of Chinese national and cultural identity acquired vital significance to scholars of both comparative literature and cultural studies. To my mind, seeking such a Chinese national and cultural identity also has much to do with the construction or reconstruction of Chinese critical discourse, for in this respect globalization has certainly provided us with a rare opportunity to develop our national culture and literature.
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 | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.066 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".