Chinese Relational Sociology: An Analysis of the Theoretical Paradigm of Guanxi Studies in the Chinese Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of Guanxi refers to social ties that are empowered by cultural specificity in Chinese societies, with its purpose of motivating and utilizing embedded resources in networking structure and practices under the principles of Confucius regulation and norms set by actors. In this paper, the author comprehensively analyzes theoretical and empirical contributions to guanxi studies in the Chinese context, initiating further directions for its development. Currently, guanxi studies are dominated by the main paradigm of network analysis, while the cultural elements of its connotation are interpreted via anthropological perspectives. This paper argues a “relational turn” led by Mustafa Emirbayer, Harrison White, and Jan Fuhse that contributes to the interactive analysis of cultural and economic values in Relational Sociology (RS), which leads to a more sophisticated interpretation. Such perspective of theoretical approach, argues (1) the combination of localized and universal framework of theories in interpersonal communications, (2) moderation and inter-correlation in debates between constructivist and structuralist perspectives, and (3) interaction between economic and cultural elements.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| 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 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".