Evolution of Our Times: Developing Democratic Identities in Hong Kong and Taiwan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two trends have become increasingly apparent from public opinion polls in Taiwan and Hong Kong over the past decade. One is a growing identification with and confidence in being exclusively Taiwanese or Hong Konger. The other is increasing public support for democracy. Existing research investigates the association between local identity and democracy, but does not address the meanings people in Taiwan and Hong Kong ascribe to their identities. This limits a fuller understanding of the relationships and driving forces between and behind these trends. One interpretation is that demands for greater democracy mask growing nativism, even xenophobia. An alternative one is that heightened local identification reflects aspirations for greater political participation and restraint on executive authority in Taiwan and Hong Kong. Using discourse analysis collected through the Making Identities Count in Asia project, alongside polling data, we submit that elite and mass discourse reveal an integration of democratic expectations with local identity and its broadening appeal in Taiwan and Hong Kong. People in these two societies take principles associated with democracy to be closely tied to their sense of identification and locality. Such ideas do not eschew the value of tradition rooted in local experiences and can outweigh economic growth. However, Hong Kongers and Taiwanese have come to identify substantively more with democracy than the exceptionalism implied in "localism," "Asian values," or some form of nativism. PRC attempts to appeal to local concerns in Taiwan and Hong Kong need to grapple with either meaningful respect for democratic aspirations or e ectively repressing them. PRC insistence on the erasure of such values will likely result in continued tensions with Taiwan and Hong Kong, and include mass resistance and the need for force, even violence.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".