MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406437291 · doi:10.1086/733417

Why Was Small Not Beautiful? Rethinking China’s Great Leap Forward through Water

2025· article· en· W4406437291 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental History · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransboundary Water Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaHistoryGeographyPolitical scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Utilizing both ministerial records at the national level and local archival documents from Lankao County, Henan Province, this article examines how small-scale water projects turned into environmental disasters during the Great Leap Forward (1958–62). Previous scholarship has often regarded the Great Leap water policy, namely, the Three Priorities (water storage, small scale, and mass based), as a testimony to the irrationality of Maoist mass mobilization. This article, by contrast, interprets the Maoist technological complex as a troubled marriage between two variants of developmentalism: the high-modernist pursuit of productivism and scientific rationality (water storage) and the Maoist faith in decentralized mass initiatives (small-scale, situated, local projects). The article argues that Maoist water politics were undone by their internal contradictions, because high-modernist centralism undermined populist, revolutionary mass activism—a conflict that extended beyond hydrological engineering and weakened Mao’s revolution as a whole.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.202 · 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