Informality as an approach to claiming the right to resettlement and achieving inclusive rural-to-urban resettlement for landless villagers: The case of Hangzhou, China
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 discusses how to achieve inclusive resettlement for landless villagers amid China’s promotion of urbanization through resettlement. This research conceptualizes the right to resettlement in China by synthesizing the literature on resettlement, the right to the city, and informality. This research captures four subsets of rights to resettlement based on a review of existing resettlement literature, including rights to economic enhancement, spatial adaptation, social stability, and political inclusiveness. While state-led resettlement policies should have prioritized inclusive resettlement, our case study reveals the significant role played by villagers’ bottom-up approaches, utilizing informality and collective strategies, in enhancing inclusiveness. The research adopts an explanatory-sequential approach that uses principal component analysis, semi-structured interviews, and questionnaire surveys to investigate post-resettlement adaptation in 12 resettlement communities in Hangzhou, China. The empirical evidence suggests informal economic activities, spontaneous spatial transformation, hybrid governance structures, and non-institutionalized participation have contributed significantly to villagers claiming their right to resettlement. We conclude with recommendations for achieving inclusive resettlement.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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