MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411758399 · doi:10.3998/gs.7225

<em>Tielian</em> in Mixed Realism: Real Person Fan Fiction and Collective Memory in Contemporary Chinese Fandom

2025· article· en· W4411758399 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Storytelling Journal of Digital and Moving Images · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntellectual Property Law
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article investigates the question of authenticity in Chinese real-person fan fiction (RPF), a fan-fiction subgenre centered on real-world celebrities. Through the lens of tielian (“getting close to the face”) and mixed realism, the study examines how Chinese RPF authors craft recognizable representations of celebrity characters that resonate with fan readers. Focusing on the RPF work Light Rail Does Not Reach the Eighteenth Floor on the fostering idol, the case illustrates how real-world events are transformed into compelling depictions of the past that weave fragments of realities into a coherent narrative. In this context, tielian serves both as a measure of authenticity and as a means of expanding readers’ consumption of celebrities’ media-generated realities. Since collective memory plays a crucial role in the fostering-idol fandom, subjective interpretations often contest each other in the agreement of tielian. This tension highlights the dynamic negotiation of authenticity within RPF communities. By framing tielian as a form of processual and affective truth making, the article positions RPF as a site of literary innovation that reconfigures realism, authorship, and authenticity in participatory digital culture.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.011
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.267
Teacher spread0.246 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Storytelling Journal of Digital and Moving ImagesSame topicIntellectual Property LawFrench-language works237,207