MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389497519 · doi:10.1163/25427466-07020005

The Changing Role of the Police in the People’s Republic of China, 1949–1966

2023· article· en· W4389497519 on OpenAlexaff
Wang Juan

Bibliographic record

VenueChina Law and Society Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChinese history and philosophy
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaPunishment (psychology)CommunismPublic orderPolitical sciencePeople's RepublicPublic securityCriminologyState (computer science)LawSociologyPsychologySocial psychologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In mid-1966, the police in China reportedly assisted mass killings of “class enemies” or showed indifference to such events when they were enacted by others. Why did the police, as a coercive apparatus of the communist regime, not execute these class enemies, as they had done between 1949 and 1957 in the movements to suppress and eliminate counterrevolutionaries? And why did the police, as a state organ for maintaining public order, not take action to prevent or halt these killings? Drawing primarily on original archival documents, this article studies the evolving role of the police and its shifting priorities between 1949 and 1966. It shows that, after an initial expansion followed by a partial contraction, official police responsibilities transitioned from enforcing selective punishment and maintaining public order to assisting or overlooking revolutionary 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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChina Law and Society ReviewSame topicChinese history and philosophyFrench-language works237,207