MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210543867 · doi:10.1086/717956

“Bureaucratic <i>shiyuzheng</i>”

2021· article· en· W4210543867 on OpenAlexaff
Jie Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueHau Journal of Ethnographic Theory · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBureaucracySilencePoliticsAggressionFraming (construction)SociologyPolitical economyHarmPolitical scienceSocial psychologyPsychologyAestheticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the Chinese bureaucracy, where political imperatives for maintaining harmony require people to restrain negative affects, officials often express anger and aggression through silence, apathy, and other flat affects. Other times, overly positive speech that conforms to dominant party ideologies overrides negative affects, flattening officials’ emotions and stifling their own voices. Drawing on ethnographic research in a city of Shandong province, this article studies both responses as “bureaucratic shiyuzheng.” I resist linking shiyuzheng primarily to biomedical explanations, or to the stress and depression triggered by anti-corruption campaigns, and instead treat this phenomenon as an embodied and affective practice that generates space for discourse, psychosocial imagination, and quiet critique. I demonstrate that bureaucratic shiyuzheng is the effect of double silencing, partly imposed by binding bureaucratic structures and the government’s increasing constraints on speech/voice, partly emerging from officials themselves, who seek self-preservation and optimization of resources. Rather than direct resistance to such silencing conditions, people cultivate shiyuzheng as an important mode of social critique.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHau Journal of Ethnographic TheorySame topicLanguage, Discourse, Communication StrategiesFrench-language works237,207