Research on the Governance of Rural Living Environments in China: A Perspective of “System-Life” Based on Field Research Conducted in Village A, Xiangtan County, Hunan Province
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research focuses on the governance of rural living environments in China from the perspective of “System-Life”. The objective of improving rural living environments is to construct a beautiful countryside, which is an important part of China’s rural revitalization strategy. Through a literature review, a field study, and quantitative analysis, this paper explores the tensions and interactions between local governments and social demand by investigating four elements of the village improvement program: the village’s appearance, sewage treatment, domestic garbage disposal, and the sanitation of toilets. We also examine the interactions between the main participants involved in the governance of rural living environments, including the primary-level governments, village committees, and the villagers themselves. It was found that there is a path toward constructing a benign interaction between “system” and “life”. In terms of “system”, the primary-level governments play a decisive role in the implementation of policies, offering a creative interpretation and flexible implementation of a policy. From the perspective of “life”, the village committee is the bridge between the primary-level governments and villagers. The villagers have their own understanding of policy and the logic of life. This probe leads us to suggest that primary-level governments need to respect the perceptions and priorities of villagers in order to improve the performance of this well-intentioned program.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".