A regional and historical approach to platform capitalism: The cases of Alibaba and Tencent
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
This article situates China’s efforts to toughen the regulation of its tech companies since the late 2010s in the global context of Big Techs rein-in and the specific trajectory of economic development in China. Focusing on the three-phase development of Alibaba and Tencent since the late 1990s, we propose a regional and historical approach to study platform capitalism concerning how platform companies, through interacting and negotiating with shifting institutional conditions, have developed novel business models, organizational structures, and technological innovations. Not a static domination, state power co-shapes platform capitalism through a constant process of institutional improvisation and innovation, as well as interacting with private players. This geographically and historically conscious approach to platform capitalism not only contributes to a more nuanced understanding of the specificities and historicity of platform capitalism in China, but also helps to deprovincialize platform studies and extend its analytical relevance beyond the Euro-American focus or the disciplinary boundaries.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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